Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => Gear => Topic started by: ImaginalDisc on <02-03-14/2251:02>
-
My decker's getting interested in bricking weapons during firefights - which is good because that's useful.
However, it's not stated if different weapons have different device ratings. Page 234 has a table for device ratings and classified weapons as device rating 2. Unless there's an official rule elsewhere, do I assume all technological weapons have device rating 2?
-
That's what I would use. If they ran up against some prototype next-gen laser or something, I would probably go higher.
-
That's what I would use. If they ran up against some prototype next-gen laser or something, I would probably go higher.
Funny you should mention that. My players got their hands on one. I modified one of the 3rd edition Ares laser pistols. I was considering making it device rating 3, but I could as easily justify it as device rating 2 for being finicky.
-
Device Rating 2 is what we use.
Our GM ruled that a firearm, when bricked, no longer works only if the electronics are integrated (i.e., integrated smart link). If the electronics are an accessory, then only the accessory is bricked and the gun can still be fired. And sometimes bad guys turn off smart links so bricking isn't possible.
I don't know of any clear distinction in the rules.
-
I don't know of any clear distinction in the rules.
There isn't a clear distinction because the gun doesn't need the smartgun system to be vulnerable to bricking in the first place - throwbacks aside, any and every gun can be wireless and can be bricked.
-
I don't know of any clear distinction in the rules.
There isn't a clear distinction because the gun doesn't need the smartgun system to be vulnerable to bricking in the first place - throwbacks aside, any and every gun can be wireless and can be bricked.
Yep yep yep.
"Wireless:The weapon displays an ARO that tells you
ammo levels and ammo type loaded. If you have a DNI,
you get two additional benefits. First, ejecting a clip (for
weapons that have them) is a Free Action rather than a
Simple Action. Second, changing fire modes (on mod-els that have more than one) is a Free Action rather than
a Simple Action."
This is the wireless function all firearms have. So all firearms can be wireless on / off. If they're on, they can be bricked.
And I think if they're off they can't be bricked.
I guess it can get problematic if you have the external smartlink on but the gun itself off? Maybe that's impossible.
-
I would think an external accessory might be subject to being a different node for the purposes of bricking. But that's really nitpicking things to get down to that level of detail. If a GM feels like going that far, by all means go ahead. But in my games, a bricked gun is a bricked gun.
-
Remember that you can get any weapons as a throwback at no extra cost.
-
Or just tell your gamemaster once that by default, all your devices are wireless off.
-
Or stop worrying because I'd rather have a decker that breaks my guns then literally any other enemy that breaks my face. With a bullet. By shooting me. In the face.
The amount of paranoia over a gun needing a bit of repair astonishes me. I think there legitimately are players who would rather their character be gunned down then their own gun be broken.
-
That's a bit insulting considering the "paranoia" is regarding your guns breaking down when you're trying to use them to shoot the people that are trying to shoot you.
-
What, you only carry one? ;)
Better to lose the gun then to lose your brain, I say!
-
Except it's entirely possible that losing the gun will lead to losing your brain. It's a risk-benefit analysis issue, not a no-brainer.
-
That's a bit insulting considering the "paranoia" is regarding your guns breaking down when you're trying to use them to shoot the people that are trying to shoot you.
There is also the teamwork aspect. I'd rather face three security goons than two goons plus a spider who is trying to brick my weapons and mess with my team's tactical AROs.
-
I don't know of any clear distinction in the rules.
There isn't a clear distinction because the gun doesn't need the smartgun system to be vulnerable to bricking in the first place - throwbacks aside, any and every gun can be wireless and can be bricked.
Agreed. I meant RAW doesn't clearly say "guns that are bricked stop working", though I believe that's the intent.
Our GM mandated that a hacker can disable internal electronics (i.e., the built-in computer, built-in silencer, smartgun) , or external accessories if the gun has wireless on, but the gun still works unless an internal smartgun system is bricked because that completely controls the gun. (Though the bricked electronics are broken so the gun loses those specific benefits).
He also told me that deckers don't have much to do in a gunfight other than shoot back. So yeah; I already burned one edge to avoid a one-shot death while hidden behind cover.
-
That... Is plain silly from your GM. Many enemies at the least have a commlink with them that is connected, through wires or wireless, with their smartguns, or at the least they use them to communicate with each other. If you score marks on a handful of enemies in advance, you can not only use Trace Icon to pinpoint their exact locations, you can also try shutting things down in Combat.
-
RAW doesn't clearly say "guns that are bricked stop working"
If a device is bricked, it stops working: batteries are drained, mechanical parts are fused or gummed up with melted internals, and so on. That said, not all devices are completely useless when bricked. A vibro-sword is still sharp, a roto-drone glides to the ground on auto-gyro, a lock stays locked. The firing pin on an assault rifle might not work, but its bayonet works just fine for stabbing smug hackers."
::)
-
RAW doesn't clearly say "guns that are bricked stop working"
If a device is bricked, it stops working: batteries are drained, mechanical parts are fused or gummed up with melted internals, and so on. That said, not all devices are completely useless when bricked. A vibro-sword is still sharp, a roto-drone glides to the ground on auto-gyro, a lock stays locked. The firing pin on an assault rifle might not work, but its bayonet works just fine for stabbing smug hackers."
::)
Unfortunately, already been there. It's a moot point. His decision is the built-in computer is what bricks and the AR ammo counter stops working but the gun still shoots.
Thanks though :)
-
Unfortunately, already been there. It's a moot point. His decision is the built-in computer is what bricks and the AR ammo counter stops working but the gun still shoots.
Send him here. We'll straighten him out. :P
-
Not necessarily, I've been in that smartgun debate before and I consider it quite strange that an external smartgun frying would utterly destroy the entire gun. You can find the topic somewhere in General Discussion.
However, there's still a few tricks to use against smartguns, dropping clips is just one of them.
-
Alternatively, get him a seeing eye dog.
-
Not necessarily, I've been in that smartgun debate before and I consider it quite strange that an external smartgun frying would utterly destroy the entire gun. You can find the topic somewhere in General Discussion.
However, there's still a few tricks to use against smartguns, dropping clips is just one of them.
Yeah, you're probably better off just getting marks on them. Mess with their ARO's, spoof messages from their commanders, detonate all wireless enabled grenades etc.
And wear a lot of armor, if you're not going to do serious fighting get a helmet and a ballistic shield too. Consult with your teammates how to protect your squishy arse :)
-
Not necessarily, I've been in that smartgun debate before and I consider it quite strange that an external smartgun frying would utterly destroy the entire gun. You can find the topic somewhere in General Discussion.
However, there's still a few tricks to use against smartguns, dropping clips is just one of them.
Actually the logic was only an internal smartgun system being bricked disables the gun. For other internals and all external (including smartgun) accessories, only that electronic item is broken.
I've worked in the electronics field for a long time. My opinion was whether the electronics are internal or external doesn't matter. If electronics are interconnected into an otherwise non-electronic device, then the entire item is susceptible to the damage. The Matrix Condition Monitor is just a streamlined game mechanic to assess that damage.
-
Not necessarily, I've been in that smartgun debate before and I consider it quite strange that an external smartgun frying would utterly destroy the entire gun.
Given that an external mount is still able to pull the trigger, there has to be a connection between the external smartgun and the trigger. Bad design locks the trigger in place if the smartgun gets bricked, but what are you going to do chummer? Complan to a Mega?
-
What do you mean, pull the trigger? Do you mean Electronic Firing?
-
What do you mean, pull the trigger? Do you mean Electronic Firing?
You can fire any smartgun by sending a command to the smartgun system.
-
You can fire any smartgun by sending a command to the smartgun system.
This.
-
I think the question has more to do with HOW the smartgun is doing it. In other words, is there a metal band that wraps around the top of the trigger and constricts when commanded to fire, or is it integrated into the weapon itself, requiring no trigger action at all. Also, is there a difference between internal and external on that?
Because if it were something mechanical like a metal band constricting, it could potentially still be fired. If it were something integrated into the electronic firing mechanism, bricking it might take the gun out entirely.
At least that's what I gathered.
-
I think this is becoming too semantic, like other discussions. I'll summarize my feelings in this way. The situation is this: game balance and mechanics need to be simple and require little to no bookkeeping. If a gun gets bricked in my game, it doesn't work. Guns can be connected via a PAN to a decker that can attempt to protect his network. The gun must be connected to a PAN to get any electronic benefits (smartlinks, for example) and therefore become susceptible to hacking attempts. Guns get bricked with
2 9 points of Matrix Damage.
-
Guns get bricked with 2 points of Matrix Damage.
Wut?
-
I wasn't aware guns had a device rating of -12, which is what you'd need for [8+(DR/2)] to be 2.
-
Guns get bricked with 2 points of Matrix Damage.
Wut?
Sorry - I was typing too fast and mistyped. It should say 9 damage boxes. That's 8 + (Device Rating /2). This would not be a problem if I used the numbers on the top of the keyboard. I use a 10-key and sometimes my fingers go where they want. :P
-
In my understanding of the smartgun systems, they can and do actually prevent your gun from firing when aimed at friendly targets. That means, they're quite invasive into the weapon and its firing mechanism (whether it's an internal or external smartgun system).
Hence, if that gets catastrophically fried (as called for by RAW), your gun won't shoot.
-
In my understanding of the smartgun systems, they can and do actually prevent your gun from firing when aimed at friendly targets. That means, they're quite invasive into the weapon and its firing mechanism (whether it's an internal or external smartgun system).
Hence, if that gets catastrophically fried (as called for by RAW), your gun won't shoot.
Well, that's the purpose of the Advanced Safety System in SR4's Arsenal, which was essentially an upgrade upon the smartgun system. But given its various functions, it clearly must be more than something you just slap on top.
-
Wouldn't that be a good argument to have the best commlink you can get and slave your guns (and other vulnerable equipment) to said commlink? It would offer a lot more protection to lower rated devices. At least that is how I understand it. Also, if in doubt, REBOOT! Sure you are out for a combat turn but it's better than having a bricked gun. Then you can still shoot your decker later for not protecting your stuff better. ;D
As far as smartgun systems go from what I read even the most basic guns have a computer chip in them and can be bricked. A mounted smartgun system must either plug into the gun's built in computer or interacts with it wirelessly.
-
Yeah, slaving to a good commlink is a nice way to make it harder to hack. Especially if you let the team's mage own that commlink and manage your defenses. ;) Also, make sure you (or the mage) got a Low Lifestyle so you're on the Public Grid: It gives Deckers a -2 to hack you.
And of course Wireless Jammers are a nice way to raise the odds against the hackers.
-
I kind of assumed the Public Grid is open to anyone, even those with high lifestyles and wouldn't require a test to hop to it.
-
Hm, good point. In that case you can simply go Public Grid, period, to protect yourself.
-
They can hop to the public grid but IIRC all tests done ON the public grid are at a -2 dice penalty due to the crappy nature of the public grid. At least that is how I understood it.
-
Yes that's true but that's only for matrix actions. So if you don't do any (not a decker or rigger) you don't need to worry about that!
-
It's fun how everyone talks past each other and reaches the same conclusion. :)
-
Yes that's true but that's only for matrix actions. So if you don't do any (not a decker or rigger) you don't need to worry about that!
Don't you need a decker/technomancer/IC/Sprite (one or more of the above) to brick a gun using Matrix actions? ???
-
Which I think was Kanly's point. :P That everyone can switch to the Public Grid as defense against hackers.
-
Ah, ok. Timepieces are now synchronized. 8)
-
Sigh. WTF? A gun stops firing because the electronics in it stop working? I don't think so. A firing pin is purely mechanical and should not be affected whatsoever by electronics meltdown in the gun. With each new edition of Shadowrun, I get more and more fed up with the completely illogical and unrealistic matrix/hacking rules (each version fixes some things and breaks others (with core SR4 being the worst)).
-
Guns in Shadowrun are different, eg. b/c you can totally fire them w/o physically pulling the trigger. But if you want yours to be unbrickable you can always buy a throwback one, or just keep wireless off.
-
Guns in Shadowrun are different, eg. b/c you can totally fire them w/o physically pulling the trigger. But if you want yours to be unbrickable you can always buy a throwback one, or just keep wireless off.
It's very believable that up to date the guns in shadowrun no longer have a mechanical connection between the firing pin and the trigger, but instead use some sort or piston to move the firing pin.
A piston activated by a computer after it receives a command either from a smartlink/remote control signal or from a signal from the trigger being used. In this kind of setup, I can easily see a bricked gun being unable to work...and could also explain the difference between modern and throwback guns (with throwbacks still having a mechanical linkage between pin and trigger).
-
It's very believable that up to date the guns in shadowrun no longer have a mechanical connection between the firing pin and the trigger, but instead use some sort or piston to move the firing pin.
A piston activated by a computer after it receives a command either from a smartlink/remote control signal or from a signal from the trigger being used. In this kind of setup, I can easily see a bricked gun being unable to work...and could also explain the difference between modern and throwback guns (with throwbacks still having a mechanical linkage between pin and trigger).
When you say that something is very believable, then point out a gaping flaw in that design that you can drive a semi through, it's no longer believable. Maybe for civilian models it could be believable, but for security and military grade weapons, not a chance. Most tools that involve life and death (guns fall in here) have a manual backup.
I cannot think of a single advantage gained by breaking the mechanical connection between trigger and firing pin on guns. There are only downsides.
-
I too can only see downsides, but that is because I grew up in a world that uses this system. I'm sure when the Wheelock was invented, people who grew up with matchlock firearms did not trust them because there was no constant flame to ignite the powder, a flame that the matchlock provided.
Even today, military grade weapons are being developed to use both caseless ammunition and an electrical ignition for the caseless propellant. This system uses a computer to control the electrical ignition, and therefore the rate of fire. As Shadowrun has made it clear that caseless being commonly available, and caseless being more easily ignited electrically than physically, I find it to be believable that the majority, if not all guns would be made to that standard.
As for how long it would take for people to trust electric guns over mechanical, who knows, but when it's what you grow up with, you only see flaws in other systems... just as we only see flaws with electric guns.
-
It's very believable that up to date the guns in shadowrun no longer have a mechanical connection between the firing pin and the trigger, but instead use some sort or piston to move the firing pin.
A piston activated by a computer after it receives a command either from a smartlink/remote control signal or from a signal from the trigger being used. In this kind of setup, I can easily see a bricked gun being unable to work...and could also explain the difference between modern and throwback guns (with throwbacks still having a mechanical linkage between pin and trigger).
When you say that something is very believable, then point out a gaping flaw in that design that you can drive a semi through, it's no longer believable. Maybe for civilian models it could be believable, but for security and military grade weapons, not a chance. Most tools that involve life and death (guns fall in here) have a manual backup.
I cannot think of a single advantage gained by breaking the mechanical connection between trigger and firing pin on guns. There are only downsides.
Firing through DNI, more advanced safety systems... If we assume for a second that some of the technological functions can ONLY work if that link is severed, then it makes sense that it would be.
And throwback guns don't need an explanation for being "immune" to bricking, because they're not. They don't have wireless, sure, but nothing stops you from plugging into it and bricking it over a wire. Gun H(e)aven 3 did include rules for a weapon property that could indicate such immunity (Vintage, I think), but that property ALSO makes it incompatible to other technological features.
-
I would be shocked if any military ever adopts a weapon that can be fully disabled through hacking (some features disabled, sure). Anyone who relies on weapons that can easily be hacked and disabled (and SR5 guns are trivial to hack unless slaved to a high-end commlink/deck) is dead. I could see something like a mechanical selector switch - engage/disengage the mechanical linkage, No gun should be bricked by simply doing matrix damage - it's just stupidly unrealistic (I'm willing to suspend disbelief for a lot of things but this is just silly).
-
Twilight, before you get your panties in a twist... the guns of Shadowrun are matrix devices as well. Therefore, you break the matrix device, you break the gun. This is the future, not the present.
-
Firing through DNI, more advanced safety systems... If we assume for a second that some of the technological functions can ONLY work if that link is severed, then it makes sense that it would be.
And throwback guns don't need an explanation for being "immune" to bricking, because they're not. They don't have wireless, sure, but nothing stops you from plugging into it and bricking it over a wire. Gun H(e)aven 3 did include rules for a weapon property that could indicate such immunity (Vintage, I think), but that property ALSO makes it incompatible to other technological features.
Those do not require that the mechanical connection between the trigger and pin be severed. They only require additional elements to be added. DNI could easily use a system just like a feathertouch pad. The trigger still works fine, but when you engage the feather touch pad, it triggers the pad electronically. Fry the pad, the trigger still works fine. Advanced Safety just has to engage the "safety." Nothing about that involves breaking the mechanical connection between trigger and firing pin.
So, no, it still makes no sense. It is, as with many SR 5 things, designed illogically and horribly if the trigger no longer connects to the firing pin.
I too can only see downsides, but that is because I grew up in a world that uses this system. I'm sure when the Wheelock was invented, people who grew up with matchlock firearms did not trust them because there was no constant flame to ignite the powder, a flame that the matchlock provided.
Even today, military grade weapons are being developed to use both caseless ammunition and an electrical ignition for the caseless propellant. This system uses a computer to control the electrical ignition, and therefore the rate of fire. As Shadowrun has made it clear that caseless being commonly available, and caseless being more easily ignited electrically than physically, I find it to be believable that the majority, if not all guns would be made to that standard.
As for how long it would take for people to trust electric guns over mechanical, who knows, but when it's what you grow up with, you only see flaws in other systems... just as we only see flaws with electric guns.
It has nothing to do with growing up with our current system. It has to do with actually analyzing the system being proposed. There is a rule called the five year old rule (I believe the reference comes from the Evil Overlord list). If a five year old can spot the gaping flaw in the system, come up with a new system. This proposal fails the five year old test. Given, the five year old I know is smart for his age, but still.
Sure, people hated the wheelock system at first. The people that actually analyzed it thought it was a wonderful improvement. The opposite happens as well. People introduce new systems that are horrible, and after analysis they fall by the wayside. Take a look at pinfire ammunition. There is a reason it didn't ever become a real standard.
As for electrically fired ammunition, yes it exists today. Yes, some of the systems use a computer chip to control rate of fire. Almost all of them will still work if the CPU fries by pulling the trigger and sending a single pulse (the pulse is connected to the trigger and works even without the CPU).
I see many advantages to electric guns. Quieter, lighter ammunition, easier to clean, no ejection port. The only current downside is really the lack of a good heat sink, which causes ammunition to cook off if the fire rate gets to high, but they've made leaps and bounds in that field in the past decade. Many use systems more similar to plastique than traditional propellants. This is called analysis. I see no reason to disconnect the trigger from the firing mechanism though. All that does is promote failure as the CPU is usually the most fragile element in most electronic devices. Again, it's illogical and horrible design to cut out the most basic backup for a device.
-
Those do not require that the mechanical connection between the trigger and pin be severed.
You think.
-
No, I pointed out examples that use similar methods to work. They have things that function similar to Advanced Safety in todays world. I have been to a range where the rented guns will only fire when in the correct zone and pointed down range. They use it for safety training (they only allow rented guns in their safety courses). All it does is engage the safety when the gun is not in the safe zone and pointed down range.
Similarly, feather touch pads function by electrically triggering the firing pin, but I have never seen a gun that has the trigger disengaged to use the feather touch pad. I have never seen a gun with a feather touch pad that was broken, not be able to fire.
Clearly they do not require the contact between trigger and pin to be severed. The key word here is require. Both involve and electrical triggering of an event. Both can be electrically triggered on todays guns. Neither requires what you proposed.
-
Twilight, before you get your panties in a twist... the guns of Shadowrun are matrix devices as well. Therefore, you break the matrix device, you break the gun. This is the future, not the present.
Sorry. This makes absolutely no sense. Nobody would ever use a gun that can easily be disabled remotely (which all guns are under SR5 rules). Breaking the matrix device should not under any circumstances disable the gun (disable some features, sure, but not the basic gun functionality).
SR5 feels like they are introducing rules because they suck at coming up with believable matrix rules. Nobody ever uses wireless (I saw very few chars in SR4 with wireless enabled on anything except commlinks)? Add wireless bonuses (that most of the time don't make sense). Hackers feel left out in combat? Make guns brickable so they can be directly effective (even though its a ludicrous idea).
I'm fine with the idea of wireless bonuses but they need to make sense (and a lot of them don't). I'm fine with the idea of a gun's electronic systems being brickable (but the basic gun function should not be).
-
I'm fine with the idea of wireless bonuses but they need to make sense (and a lot of them don't). I'm fine with the idea of a gun's electronic systems being brickable (but the basic gun function should not be).
Shadowrun guns have caseless ammo as a standard option, can freely interchange ammo with any weapon of the same type, and have all kinds of bells and whistles like ammo counters. The trigger device may not be a mechanical trigger any longer, but an electric current delivered to the bullet's primer.
If you want a gun that cannot be hacked, get a throwback or make it one. The default option is that it's wireless.
Remember that weapons aren't wireless only to give the user advantages, but also the *owner.* It's actually rather difficult to steal an owned wireless device. this makes tracking stolen weapons a breeze. There are advantages for wireless guns that corporate/government bosses like.
"Boss, if we make all our guns throwbacks they become immune to hacking, but are easy to steal. Our own employees could start selling them off."
"How common is hacking?"
"Less common than theft."
"Go with the wireless guns."
-
But why does a wireless gun get completely disabled when the electronics are bricked? It makes absolutely no sense.
There are examples of a lot of the "nifty advantages" today and they still work if the electronics are destroyed (caseless ammo, electric firing, ammo interchange (within caliber which just indicates SR guns all standardized on caliber by type), corner cams, etc - I'm not sure about ammo counter but I expect someone has done it already).
Catalyst really needs to have people that actually understand tech review the areas of the book they have knowledge in. It's pretty clear SR rules are often written by authors who have limited (or no) understanding of even current technology in the areas they are writing about.
-
Anything you can do wirelessly, there are other ways to do in the universe easily as well. As for the trigger being connected mechanically, as I covered above, there are only downsides to that. There is no reason no to keep the trigger connected to the pulse device for electronic firing.
It's not that wireless should not exist on guns. It's that it's quite dumb for a mechanical gun (and there is no reason for the triggering device not to be connecting to the firing pin/pulse) to be unfirable by being hacked. It's like hacking my boxers and suddenly I can't unbutton the fly anymore. It just doesn't make sense. Then again, it makes about as much as sense as half of the wireless bonuses, so I'm seeing a trend.
-
No, I pointed out examples that use similar methods to work
My point being that you don't actually know how a smartlink operates and what is needed for its functions.
-
No, but we know what is needed for a gun to fire, both using traditional cased ammunition and using caseless ammunition that is electronically fired.
How the smartgun works is irrelevant to the situation.
-
No, but we know what is needed for a gun to fire, both using traditional cased ammunition and using caseless ammunition that is electronically fired.
How the smartgun works is irrelevant to the situation.
It might be. It might not be. Are you saying there there's absolutely no possible way for it to work that might interfere with the normal mechanical operation of the weapon, even though clearly things to cause the relevant mechanical events must all be present? Remember that bricked isn't just "doesn't work", bricked is "catastrophic failure". It's not simply the device not doing what it's supposed to, but rather the device failing in such a manner that it can't do a damn thing. Hell, even accepting your assumption that you know of every possible way in which a device 61 years in the future could possibly interface with a firearm constructed 61 years into the future, it could well be that bricking the device damages the mechanical side too; that is, when the gun is bricked your firing pin might actually get broken or otherwise rendered inoperable as a result.
-
"Smoke, sparks, pops, bangs, sizzles, nasty smells, and occasionally even small fires are
common features of a device in the process of becoming a brick."
-SR5 P228
I imagine said noticeable damage could feasibly spread toward the mechanical components. Particularly the 'small fires' portion. I suppose it's better than the device exploding.
-
Catalyst really needs to have people that actually understand tech review the areas of the book they have knowledge in. It's pretty clear SR rules are often written by authors who have limited (or no) understanding of even current technology in the areas they are writing about.
The technology is technology that FASA invented, which has been changed repeatedly over the last several decades. The game takes place over a hundred years in the future. You're telling me that in the early 18th century, people could have reasonably predicted cell phones, cars, nuclear weaponry and fully-automatic weapons? Sometimes the science doesn't make sense, but the fiction does. This is one of those cases.
Consider the fact that the world is incredibly dystopian. What would be better for a corporation than the ability to disarm those that rise up against it? There's evidence of this in the 4th edition fluff, when discussing the Smart Safety System. Your very food has the ability to be used to track your location, diet, and shopping habits... why would a gun that has electronic firing, wireless communication, and such be so far-fetched? And FYI, all guns can have wireless turned off, which makes them immune to hacking and thus immune to bricking. If you must have your gun wireless for some reason, you can always slave it to your Decker's PAN and run it silently so that the enemy has to get through your Decker first.
-
Some is FASA, but much of the issues are new to SR4 and 5.
As for looking at the future. SR was created in the late '80s and predicting about the 2050s. So, a reasonable questions would be if people in the 1910-1920 era could have made those predictions, and science fiction tells us yes, some did. Where you get comparing it to the 1700s I have no idea.
I imagine said noticeable damage could feasibly spread toward the mechanical components. Particularly the 'small fires' portion. I suppose it's better than the device exploding.
I've watched guns catch on fire and still operate just fine. Very few of them are fragile. The thing is containing explosions to propel bullets. Remember that.
It might be. It might not be. Are you saying there there's absolutely no possible way for it to work that might interfere with the normal mechanical operation of the weapon, even though clearly things to cause the relevant mechanical events must all be present? Remember that bricked isn't just "doesn't work", bricked is "catastrophic failure". It's not simply the device not doing what it's supposed to, but rather the device failing in such a manner that it can't do a damn thing. Hell, even accepting your assumption that you know of every possible way in which a device 61 years in the future could possibly interface with a firearm constructed 61 years into the future, it could well be that bricking the device damages the mechanical side too; that is, when the gun is bricked your firing pin might actually get broken or otherwise rendered inoperable as a result.
I'm saying that if the gun is designed with the tiniest bit of intelligence there wouldn't be a way to destroy it by bricking the electronics. Just the slightest bit of intelligent design would separate the electronic bits from the trigger mechanism so that one is not directly connected to the other. Brick the smart gun, oh yay, you lost one connection to the firing pin. As for destroying the firing pin, I guess it totally makes sense for each one to have a self destruct charge on it with "In case of brick" printed on it. Oh wait, it really doesn't. Look at trigger mechanisms over the past one hundred years and you'll see a pattern. They're becoming more and more resilient. More and more reliable. More and more stable, with better backups and better redundancies.
So, I'm supposed to believe that in sixty years they're supposed to be as fragile as a smartphone because....it totally makes sense? No, it doesn't make sense. It's a poor justification for a bad rule that someone though was cool.
-
I've watched guns catch on fire and still operate just fine. Very few of them are fragile. The thing is containing explosions to propel bullets. Remember that.
thats Today's Guns !
Shadowrun Guns contain a lot more electronic (from Electronic firing to Ammo Count etc) and are supposedly way more fragile.
Bricking them is (ImO) more catastophical.
a purely mechanical revolver couldn'tnt/shouldn't be Wireless ! (never getting any Bonus nor be brickable)
....ooo(but then on the other hand there's also wireless throwing knives in SR5....)
with a wireless Dance
Medicineman
-
I've watched guns catch on fire and still operate just fine. Very few of them are fragile. The thing is containing explosions to propel bullets. Remember that.
Which precludes the idea of being disabled by some particular form of damage how?
It might be. It might not be. Are you saying there there's absolutely no possible way for it to work that might interfere with the normal mechanical operation of the weapon, even though clearly things to cause the relevant mechanical events must all be present? Remember that bricked isn't just "doesn't work", bricked is "catastrophic failure". It's not simply the device not doing what it's supposed to, but rather the device failing in such a manner that it can't do a damn thing. Hell, even accepting your assumption that you know of every possible way in which a device 61 years in the future could possibly interface with a firearm constructed 61 years into the future, it could well be that bricking the device damages the mechanical side too; that is, when the gun is bricked your firing pin might actually get broken or otherwise rendered inoperable as a result.
I'm saying that if the gun is designed with the tiniest bit of intelligence there wouldn't be a way to destroy it by bricking the electronics. Just the slightest bit of intelligent design would separate the electronic bits from the trigger mechanism so that one is not directly connected to the other. Brick the smart gun, oh yay, you lost one connection to the firing pin. As for destroying the firing pin, I guess it totally makes sense for each one to have a self destruct charge on it with "In case of brick" printed on it. Oh wait, it really doesn't. Look at trigger mechanisms over the past one hundred years and you'll see a pattern. They're becoming more and more resilient. More and more reliable. More and more stable, with better backups and better redundancies.
So, I'm supposed to believe that in sixty years they're supposed to be as fragile as a smartphone because....it totally makes sense? No, it doesn't make sense. It's a poor justification for a bad rule that someone though was cool.
"Destroy" and "disable" are two very, very, very different things. And if a tech function puts something near the firing pin, as an example, the catastrophic failure of that component could cause problems for the firing pin.
-
Electronic Firing doesn't really have anything to do with it. There are caseless weapons today where the CPU controlling the electronic charge can be destroyed and the gun still puts out a single pulse when you pull the trigger. The CPU is only there to recurse the pulse if the firing mode calls for it. Sure, SR could do it differently, but it would be dumb to make it fundamentally flawed and worse.
Electronic or not, the firing pin/pulser has to be able to withstand the pressure and heat from the explosion that propels the bullet. It cannot be fragile and still function at all. Displaying ammo count (digitally) can be done today with the right magazines.
I can see bricking the ammo count, DNI interface, firing modes, etc. I can't see bricking the physical "I pull the trigger, you go boom" part of the equation though. It just makes no sense. I very seriously feel that it's about as logical as hacking the buttons on clothes to be unable to unbutton. Or throwing knives to not leave my hand (I guess that would make sense if they have gecko grip).
"Destroy" and "disable" are two very, very, very different things. And if a tech function puts something near the firing pin, as an example, the catastrophic failure of that component could cause problems for the firing pin.
Sure, if its more powerful than the bullet going off, which seems unlikely unless the gun was specifically designed to be destroyed in that manner. That's pretty much the point here. The guns would have to specifically be designed to be that bad, because it makes no sense otherwise, and it makes no sense for them to be designed that bad.
-
"Destroy" and "disable" are two very, very, very different things. And if a tech function puts something near the firing pin, as an example, the catastrophic failure of that component could cause problems for the firing pin.
Sure, if its more powerful than the bullet going off, which seems unlikely unless the gun was specifically designed to be destroyed in that manner. That's pretty much the point here. The guns would have to specifically be designed to be that bad, because it makes no sense otherwise, and it makes no sense for them to be designed that bad.
The force involved isn't the only factor - the position is important too. And we might not be talking about an explosion, either - if something warps the firing pin, or causes it to become sufficiently misaligned, that would have the same sort of effect.
-
o.k so my 2 cent when agun is brick the safty is on. naw hold on, in today guns a safty can be a decocker and with that on you can not fire. so if it is locked in place the triger move but nothing hapen and you got a brick in your hands 8)
-
The trigger device may not be a mechanical trigger any longer, but an electric current delivered to the bullet's primer.
Correct, that's a possible modification, not a standard thing.
-
The force involved isn't the only factor - the position is important too. And we might not be talking about an explosion, either - if something warps the firing pin, or causes it to become sufficiently misaligned, that would have the same sort of effect.
And, if you've been following the conversation, weapon designers have already learned from that mistake. Did weapon designer in 2075 all magically forget about every design flaw in the past 200 years? That doesn't seem logical either.
You can't put your parts behind the firing pin or their getting shattered during operation. If it's on the side of the firing pin, their has to be a metal shield that is powerful enough to handle the pressure from the chamber. Your electronics would have to heat up hotter than the explosion in the chamber does. Not really logical unless it's designed to do that.
You keep coming up with excuses, but everyone involves the weapon being specifically designed to be flawed with issues that we have already learned are bad today.
I'm not really seeing the safety as reasonable either. Every single gun would have to be designed to be flawed in the same way for that to be viable. Again, that's really bad reasoning. It's again a case of, it is because it is, which is running rampant in SR 5 and bad game design.
-
I'm not really seeing the safety as reasonable either. Every single gun would have to be designed to be flawed in the same way for that to be viable. Again, that's really bad reasoning. It's again a case of, it is because it is, which is running rampant in SR 5 and bad game design.
I think you're conflating bad gun design with bad game design. It probably is bad gun design, although if guns are supposed to have unique AROs, then an bricked gun shouldn't be able to fire in the mind Big Brother--you know, for your own safety. From a design standpoint, "Everything has a price." If you want the nifty wireless bonus, then you need to allow a certain amount of exposure to Matrix shenanigans, which has the added bonus of giving the decker something to do.
-
No, it's bad design on both parts. Good design is explained in a way that makes logical sense. Having all the firearm manufacturers magically forget the design flaws they've already discovered is bad game design. One of the most important parts of writing is research.
As for bricking the ARO, I can see it shutting down a civilian designed gun like a hunting rifle or even a target pistol, but a combat designed weapon. There is no way. Logical design would just bypass the wireless abilities until fixed. My thermostat can be controlled manually or through my smartphone. If the wireless card bricks, which it has, I can still control it manually. If my $60 thermostat now can be designed intelligently, then I see no reason for combat grade weaponry of the future not to be designed intelligently.
As for everything has a price, that's a fair point if the price makes sense and the reasoning makes sense. Most wireless bonuses fail on second count.
-
Did weapon designer in 2075 all magically forget about every design flaw in the past 200 years? That doesn't seem logical either.
Apparently ! As well as any military Intelligence or Secret Agencies as they all depend upon Wireless Fidelity in the SR5 Universe.
The Basic Idea of WiFi was a good one, but the Ingame Implementation (as well as most of the Crunch) failed badly
....(ImO)
HokaHey
Medicineman
-
IMO hacker should still mean something in combat, not just through shenanigans that are very specific, impossible sometimes and often have very little effect on say street-sams with thermovision. I think the best way I have seem a gun bricked was a gun the chambered three rounds and electronics was fried. I believe it is a fiction story from the shadowrun.com website.
As a GM I am letting my deckers and TM's brick guns. Sometimes it is all the fun they have (thus not all the time, but sometimes).
-
firearms have device rating 2, but can be slaved to a more secure device.
it's security settings can also be tweeked by owners that have good logic and intuition attributes
a firearm without a smartgun will have one device icon.
a firearm with an internal smartgun have one device icon.
a firearm with an external smartgun also only have one device icon.
firearms can go wireless on and just like any device that goes wireless on it can be bricked.
bricking will disable the device, it will not destroy or blow up the device.
...but it will stop working. you can use your firearm as a club, but you can't fire it as long as it is bricked.
to repair a bricked firearm enough to make it work you only need to repair a single box of damage.
to repair matrix damage you just need a toolkit and take a Hardware + Logic [Mental] test where each hit can be used to cut the base time of 1 hour down to half.
3 hits and it just take 15 minutes to fix it enough to make it work 100% again.
-
The force involved isn't the only factor - the position is important too. And we might not be talking about an explosion, either - if something warps the firing pin, or causes it to become sufficiently misaligned, that would have the same sort of effect.
And, if you've been following the conversation, weapon designers have already learned from that mistake. Did weapon designer in 2075 all magically forget about every design flaw in the past 200 years? That doesn't seem logical either.
You can't put your parts behind the firing pin or their getting shattered during operation. If it's on the side of the firing pin, their has to be a metal shield that is powerful enough to handle the pressure from the chamber. Your electronics would have to heat up hotter than the explosion in the chamber does. Not really logical unless it's designed to do that.
You keep coming up with excuses, but everyone involves the weapon being specifically designed to be flawed with issues that we have already learned are bad today.
I'm not really seeing the safety as reasonable either. Every single gun would have to be designed to be flawed in the same way for that to be viable. Again, that's really bad reasoning. It's again a case of, it is because it is, which is running rampant in SR 5 and bad game design.
I'm pointing out that we don't actually know what the smartlink requires, and thus it's entirely possible that it could require things that, should they catastrophically fail, disable the weapon. This is especially true when you bring in ideas like the ammo skip system, but here's a simple case: what happens if the catastrophic failure (rather than normal, expected failures) of whatever allows the smartlink to move the hammer on a pistol immobilizes the hammer?
-
There's no point in arguing about whether or not this makes sense. It's part of the game's design, and it's easily houseruled out if so desired. There really doesn't need to be more made about this issue.
-
It's very believable that up to date the guns in shadowrun no longer have a mechanical connection between the firing pin and the trigger, but instead use some sort or piston to move the firing pin.
When you say that something is very believable, then point out a gaping flaw in that design that you can drive a semi through, it's no longer believable. Maybe for civilian models it could be believable, but for security and military grade weapons, not a chance. Most tools that involve life and death (guns fall in here) have a manual backup.
We already have guns that are designed like this – they’re all civilian pistols designed to children can’t get into their parents’ gunsafe and shoot themselves or their friends, but the point is that the basis already exists.
Now would military weapons lack redundant circuitry? Doubtful. Would they have a hardline or manual system that could be set even if cyberlungs require server authentication to access internal functions? Maybe. We'll probably have to wait for SR5's equivalent of "War!" before we see most of that. As of SR5, the design is that Hackers can do something everywhere “so everybody can share in the spotlight”. Let’s not mention Faces, B&E experts, drivers, and others that have to diversify to be involved in combat… More on-topic: you and I might think there was too much effort on making hackers Useful Everywhere, but that's not something to loose your cool over.
I can see bricking the ammo count, DNI interface, firing modes, etc. I can't see bricking the physical "I pull the trigger, you go boom" part of the equation though.
...unless the gun was specifically designed to be destroyed in that manner.
1) I agree that the matrix damage should influence the interface but not the solid combat parts of equipment, but 2) you need to be able to consider equipment that doesn't work like it does in the modern day. Corps are sufficiently everywhere that they feel it's an asset and not a liability to be able to wirelessly unlock and brick a weapon they built and sold. In any case, I don't think there's any way around saying guns are designed to fail in this manner, in order to make this whole thing work.
-
One thing to remember when you think about manual backups or designed failures, by the way: The things represented by Attack or Sleaze actions aren't ever supposed to happen. Hackers discover a previously unknown vulnerability, updates are issued to remove it, new vulnerabilities are found... The whole back and forth is abstracted into these ratings.
-
My last comment on this is that I will be avoiding playing Missions under SR5 due to 2 hacking rules that make absolutely no sense:
1) this one - a gun is not brickable by disabling electronics
2) the rule that a device defends with the owner's mental stats even if they are not online (that's what the device rating is there for!)
If either of these came up in play and affected me, I would very likely storm away from the table because they are so stupid and absurd (so I'm just going to avoid that possibility). It's clear they are intentional rules but they are some of the worst rules I've seen. As others have said, part of designing a game should be doing research to make the game believable.
-
So.
What's the device rating on this forum topic grenade? Weapons and hacking is clearly shaping into one.
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/grenade.htm
-
1) this one - a gun is not brickable by disabling electronics
So you want hackers to be given even more power to shut down the Street Sam even though, taking into consideration hot sim bonuses, they can in a single turn completely disable every frakking cyber implant they have (which most are likely to be with the ludicrous price hike on bio implants)?!
-
So you want hackers to be given even more power to shut down the Street Sam even though, taking into consideration hot sim bonuses, they can in a single turn completely disable every frakking cyber implant they have (which most are likely to be with the ludicrous price hike on bio implants)?!
If a decker is in hot sim and thus unconscious, I don't see how this doesn't favor the street sam in every way.
THe decker targets your hardware.
You target their wetware.
Also, disable every cyber implant? They can attack two per turn. And they're unlikely to brick it on one attack, and attacking is a complex. Come on.
-
If a decker is in hot sim and thus unconscious, I don't see how this doesn't favor the street sam in every way.
Funny how the stalwart defenders of the hacker love of the new edition that comes at the expense of every other tech-oriented character type ignore that that hacker can 'do his thing' without being some place they can't be seen.
Also, disable every cyber implant? They can attack two per turn. And they're unlikely to brick it on one attack, and attacking is a complex. Come on.
1st Pass: Enter Sam's comm-link. Not going to be hard for a dedicated hacker.
2nd Pass: Send command to shut down every implant from said comm.
3rd Pass: Brick comm to prevent reactivation.
-
1st Pass: Enter Sam's comm-link. Not going to be hard for a dedicated hacker.
2nd Pass: Send command to shut down every implant from said comm.
3rd Pass: Brick comm to prevent reactivation.
Doesn't work that way. Closest you can get is spoof command, which would require a mark on, and a seperate action for, each piece of 'ware. As such, you're looking at, minimum, 2 passes to shut down one piece of 'ware like that.
-
Funny how the stalwart defenders of the hacker love of the new edition that comes at the expense of every other tech-oriented character type ignore that that hacker can 'do his thing' without being some place they can't be seen.
And where is the hacker getting all these points to pour into stealth in order to beat the Sam's perception?
1st Pass: Enter Sam's comm-link. Not going to be hard for a dedicated hacker.
2nd Pass: Send command to shut down every implant from said comm.
3rd Pass: Brick comm to prevent reactivation.
Uh, have you read the hacking rules? Because it doesn't actually work that way.
I mean, yeah, I'll totally agree that Decking is super overpowered in the clowniverse that your games apparently take place in, but there's a reason those of us who play Earth Prime Shadowrun 5 rules are scratching our heads.
-
If a decker is in hot sim and thus unconscious, I don't see how this doesn't favor the street sam in every way.
Funny how the stalwart defenders of the hacker love of the new edition that comes at the expense of every other tech-oriented character type ignore that that hacker can 'do his thing' without being some place they can't be seen.
Given the dice required, The decker is going to be within 100 and going to need to avoid all the penalties they can. That could mean they are visible. The average decker is going to have 12-14 dice but the average defending device will be on the public grid (-2 to deckers) have a good commlink (6) and a decent Logic (4-5) so the Decker will be facing 10-11 dice using 10-12 dice without any other negative penalties like noise or something else.
Also, disable every cyber implant? They can attack two per turn. And they're unlikely to brick it on one attack, and attacking is a complex. Come on.
1st Pass: Enter Sam's comm-link. Not going to be hard for a dedicated hacker.
2nd Pass: Send command to shut down every implant from said comm.
3rd Pass: Brick comm to prevent reactivation.
I see a few issue with this.
- I don't see Spoof command being able to send one command to multiple devices.
- a street same with DNI can turn everyone back on as a free action (so it takes a complex action for a decker to turn everything of, but only a free action for the same to turn it on again)
- a formatted device still functions basically, it just loses the wireless bonus (so the sam can turn it back on right away)
- The Decker isn't likely to brick the commlink in a single action with one attack roll and if you want to format, you require 3 marks and another action to reboot.
- The Decker has to make three rolls with slim odds to "win" which, since the 'ware and guns aren't destroyed with full matrix damage they can still be used normally (at worst minus wireless bonuses as per format device)
-
All4BigGuns, you have a lot of hatred for this new system, but you also don't seem to understand how it works.
There's a lot more steps involved than just saying, "I'm going to shut down that guy's gun, commlink, whatever." Especially if the enemy has a decker that is guarding his gear. Additionally, you keep mentioning that the decker can be "some place they can't be seen." That's just wrong. The device is almost certainly running silently, and the decker is going to want to be within 100m to account for noise. Other people have already gone on about the steps necessary for the decker to shut things down, and there are a lot of methods that GMs can use to further protect their NPCs. Also, this works both ways, so the team's decker needs to be on his toes to account for any shenanigans that the NPCs might try to pull.
-
One thing to remember when you think about manual backups or designed failures, by the way: The things represented by Attack or Sleaze actions aren't ever supposed to happen. Hackers discover a previously unknown vulnerability, updates are issued to remove it, new vulnerabilities are found... The whole back and forth is abstracted into these ratings.
Uhm...do you understand the concept behind manual backups and redundancy systems? They are there for the sole purpose of working in case things happen that aren't ever supposed to happen. Parachutes aren't supposed to not open, but it happens, so there is a backup. Most cars aren't supposed to wreck, but they do, every day, so we have airbags.
The back and forth covers the aspect of software fine, but it does not work when talking about a manual backup system.
I'm pointing out that we don't actually know what the smartlink requires, and thus it's entirely possible that it could require things that, should they catastrophically fail, disable the weapon. This is especially true when you bring in ideas like the ammo skip system, but here's a simple case: what happens if the catastrophic failure (rather than normal, expected failures) of whatever allows the smartlink to move the hammer on a pistol immobilizes the hammer?
How the smartlink works is irrelevant. Firearms don't have to have a smartlink/smartgun to be bricked.
Since a smartgun can be connected to a gun as an accessory, without actually modding the weapon, it doesn't change the actual design of the weapon.
Now then, what is relevant? How the gun is fired. How would a gun be fired electrically? We can do that today. We know how guns can be fired electrically today. We've seen the flaws in not including a manual backup in the system today.
Sure bricking ammo skip systems, trigger removed systems, etc. has a much higher probability of messing up the gun because it actually is changing the fundamental design of the gun away from what we know today.
-
As far as I can tell, here the steps for the fastest and most reliable way to disable a cybered up Sammy that has a variety of weapons (like they tend to have):
- Matrix perception to find commlink forming the PAN and other major devices (this could require much more than 1 action)
- Hack on the fly to get First mark on commlink
- Hack on the fly to get Second mark on commlink
- Hack on the fly to get Third mark on commlink
- Format the commlink
- Reboot the Commlink
- At this point you have destroyed the PAN
- have all of their devices spotted
- The devices are now on their own rating 2 defenses
- You can now kill each device with a single action.
- The Sammy is definitely hunting for your limp body. (though he should have been alerted on the format)
- Data Spike wired reflexes
- Data spike primary weapon
- Data spike secondary weapon
- Find a way to kill his slow meat now that he is either running away or hunting you down with his knife and better physical stats
If the Street Sam finds you and is out to kill you before step seven then it will go like this:
- Data spike primary weapon (with the defenses of the commlink, you are unlikely to one shot)
- Street same either blasts you or pulls his pistol and blasts you if you are wearing armor, you might survive one attack
With Sam VS Decker, it seems it is all about who finds who first, because it will take a lot longer and be a lot harder for the decker to disable the sammie than it is for the sammie to geek the decker based on the number of actions required and dice pool comparisons.
-
You could take the -10 to your Hack on the Fly pool to try for all three marks at once, but that would probably also require spending Edge to make it feasible.
-
1) this one - a gun is not brickable by disabling electronics
So you want hackers to be given even more power to shut down the Street Sam even though, taking into consideration hot sim bonuses, they can in a single turn completely disable every frakking cyber implant they have (which most are likely to be with the ludicrous price hike on bio implants)?!
why would the street samurai have his augmentations wireless on in the first place?
Also, free action to turn wireless OFF.
I don't see the problem.
-
You could take the -10 to your Hack on the Fly pool to try for all three marks at once, but that would probably also require spending Edge to make it feasible.
I don't see it happening though, if we assume an average sammie he will have a rating 6 commlink and be on the public grid. That means he will have 9-11 dice to defend against the hacker and the hacker will have two less dice (effectively eliminating the hot-sim bonus). Even taking the -4 is going to make things extremely unlikely for the Decker unless he has ultra specialized in that -- the average decker is going to have to do it one mark at a time and even then he has a much slimmer margin of error than the Sam.
-
I think this is fine. A decker isn't supposed to be able to counter a combat specialist solo. Thankfully, bricking, as fearsome as it sounds, doesn't really allow for that. Bricking is very strong against vehicles, drones, turrets, security devices and that one strategic weapon (missile launcher aimed at your rigger's van, sniper doing overwatch etc), there is no need for it to be able to disable every last weapon and cyberware realistically.
-
I think this is fine. A decker isn't supposed to be able to counter a combat specialist solo. Thankfully, bricking, as fearsome as it sounds, doesn't really allow for that. Bricking is very strong against vehicles, drones, turrets, security devices and that one strategic weapon (missile launcher aimed at your rigger's van, sniper doing overwatch etc), there is no need for it to be able to disable every last weapon and cyberware realistically.
Agreed.
-
One thing to remember when you think about manual backups or designed failures, by the way: The things represented by Attack or Sleaze actions aren't ever supposed to happen. Hackers discover a previously unknown vulnerability, updates are issued to remove it, new vulnerabilities are found... The whole back and forth is abstracted into these ratings.
Uhm...do you understand the concept behind manual backups and redundancy systems? They are there for the sole purpose of working in case things happen that aren't ever supposed to happen. Parachutes aren't supposed to not open, but it happens, so there is a backup. Most cars aren't supposed to wreck, but they do, every day, so we have airbags.
The back and forth covers the aspect of software fine, but it does not work when talking about a manual backup system.
Erm.. Do you not understand the difference between an anticipated failure and an unanticipated failure? A parachute not opening isn't supposed to happen, but it's a known possibility. The things a decker does when he bricks a device, on the other hand, are supposed to be impossible - if the manufacturer knew it was possible, they'd have made it impossible (and every time they do that, hackers find another way - which is how that back and forth is in play).
-
And yet, it so simple to not make it happen on a standard gun, why wouldn't they? It is literally, put the electronics on the outside of the gun and allow manual override. You can even house the electronics in a shell so that it looks all pretty.
And no, when it comes to anything computer related, being bricked is something you can anticipate. If it has a chip in it, someone somewhere manages to brick it. Sure, what they use to brick it might not be anticipated. What happens when it is bricked is anticipatable though. When it comes to software design, nothing is impossible. It will break, it will corrupt, it will fail. Every software engineer learns this. No experienced software designer thinks to themselves, I don't have to worry about this getting hacked/corrupted so there is no reason to design it functionally if the electronics brick. I guess in edition to forgetting about all the design flaws in guns over the past two centuries, they also only hire sophmore year programmers as well.
Think about a parachute in SR5. What would the wireless bonus on it be? Open as a free action with DNI? That seems 100% accurate to me looking at how all other wireless bonuses are set up. So, when a parachute is bricked, it can't open? Is it not anticipatable that the chip can be fried, melted, or shot? How is that safe, not to have a manual backup? It isn't. It flies in the face of everything that we know about parachute design.
-
And yet, it so simple to not make it happen on a standard gun, why wouldn't they?
So, they can somehow have ammo tracking, typing, the functions of a mag release, and fire selection all purely external with no connection at all to the mechanical elements of a gun? That seems like a stretch to me. The moment the electronics interface with the mechanical element, there is some possibility for a catastrophic failure to interfere with the mechanics.
And being bricked is an umbrella that describes a wide number of things. The specific effects of bricking on a particular weapon are NOT something you can anticipate. There's a difference between a vague idea of "this might get hacked" versus knowing what the specific effects will be, and being bricked involves a lot more than just the nonfunctionality of the electronics.
-
Right it involves the electronics frying, melting, catching fire, etc.
You realize that most of this can be done today right? Gunsmiths can make magazines today that track ammo by the tension in the springs. I've seen an AK catch fire with one. Melted the sensor. Magazine still worked fine. Why? Because it was designed intelligently. Mag release can be done electronically too today, as can firing electronically, and many types of safeties. The only thing on the list I haven't seen done is fire selection, which is primarily because full-auto weapons are so heavily restricted in the U.S. or at least restricted enough people don't spend as much money tinkering with them.
Could they mess the gun up? Sure they can. I've watched people manage to mess the gun up with normal extended magazines that have no electrical parts. Well designed ones separate the electrical from the mechanical for obvious reasons. The magazines that are good keep the reader below the spring with a buffer space. It makes the mag a little longer, but doesn't screw the mag if it breaks or melts (more common than you would think in many guns, a lot of heat transfers across the brass when you fire rapidly as much gun lovers like to do). You see, that's is preparing for catastrophic failure of the sensor, which is what I'm talking about. Sure, you can't prepare for how it get's bricked, but you can prepare for the worst case scenario.
What's the worst case scenario? The thing slags and get's in the way of moving parts, or the thing locks up and prevents firing. Smart design can compensate for the former while manual backup can take care of the later. Smart design is not hard. It can be time consuming, nervewracking, and frustrating to no end at certain points, but in the end that is what R&D is for. It isn't a "this might be hacked" generality, it's a "this might melt, catch on fire, surge, etc." generality that they think about during the design.
So they weren't able to prepare for the hacker engaging the safety four times in a row, resetting the ammo counter and engaging the slide to slag the electronics. If it's built right, you click the safety back off (or hold it off if it's still engaged electronically), pull the trigger, and it goes boom. Of course, that is assuming intelligent design which is something worth researching if you're working on a project about a guns. I got a headstart there growing up with a gunsmith for a grandpa, but the leaps and bounds we've made in the past decade are astounding, and SR barely scratches the surface of what we can do today. To think in the future, it's worse is just silly.
Now, you could say that corps want their guns to slag because it's more money for them, but that ignores one of the fundamentals of marketing. Branding. You have to deliver a certain quality, or people turn to other alternatives.
-
My point is that such separation is not the perfect preventative measure you're argument calls for it to be.
And you and I clearly have different ideas of what bricking is actually doing, and what tne worst case is.
-
My point is that such separation is not the perfect preventative measure you're argument calls for it to be.
Separation and manual override. Where is the flaw in it then? You say this, yet you aren't offering any logical reasoning behind it.
And you and I clearly have different ideas of what bricking is actually doing, and what tne worst case is.
Bricking is given this description:"Smoke, sparks, pops, bangs, sizzles, nasty smells, and occasionally even small fires are common features of a device in the process of becoming a brick."
So, what is the different idea that you have? It seems clear that the electronics are frying on the device.
-
o, they can somehow have ammo tracking, typing, the functions of a mag release, and fire selection all purely external with no connection at all to the mechanical elements of a gun? That seems like a stretch to me. The moment the electronics interface with the mechanical element, there is some possibility for a catastrophic failure to interfere with the mechanics.
Possibility, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean that frying the connections will immediately jam the gun. So I'm still not sure about external smartguns myself.
-
I feel like an external smartgun probably wouldn't brick the gun itself. IMO, the only reason an external smartgun works is because it ties into the electronics that are already in the gun. So bricking the gun wouldn't stop the external smartgun from working, and vice versa.
-
o, they can somehow have ammo tracking, typing, the functions of a mag release, and fire selection all purely external with no connection at all to the mechanical elements of a gun? That seems like a stretch to me. The moment the electronics interface with the mechanical element, there is some possibility for a catastrophic failure to interfere with the mechanics.
Possibility, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean that frying the connections will immediately jam the gun. So I'm still not sure about external smartguns myself.
Right, but the intent isn't to fry the electronics, but t render the gun non-functional - and ergo the methods employed would work towards that intent.
My point is that such separation is not the perfect preventative measure you're argument calls for it to be.
Separation and manual override. Where is the flaw in it then? You say this, yet you aren't offering any logical reasoning behind it.
And you and I clearly have different ideas of what bricking is actually doing, and what tne worst case is.
Bricking is given this description:"Smoke, sparks, pops, bangs, sizzles, nasty smells, and occasionally even small fires are common features of a device in the process of becoming a brick."
So, what is the different idea that you have? It seems clear that the electronics are frying on the device.
1) Simply put, the moment there's any interface between the electronic and the mechanical, the possibility for damage to the mechanics due to problems with the electronics exists.
2) The technological elements of the device are being radically misused in order to damage the device itself to the point of non-operability. Given that the rule states that the device ceases functioning, period, that seems more in line with the intent.
-
1 is false, as I have already pointed out with examples multiple times. It is easily combated with intelligent design. If 1 is false, and the tech is separated from the mechanical, then 2 doesn't hold water.
The rules intent is fuzzy at best. Supposedly guns completely quit functioning because an electrical snafu causes melting and destruction of all the innards no matter how dumb that design would be. Vibroblades keep their sharpness (so you can still attack with them, which is their function). What happens to a throwing knife when you brick it? The intent seems to be, go with what is logical.
Remember, "not all devices are completely useless when bricked," "The firing pin on an assault rifle might not work."
The rules in this section contradict each other quite significantly. I mean at one point we have, "A bricked device is damaged and useless until it is repaired," and then not even a whole paragraph later we have the quote above that says not all device are completely useless. I know, a matrix section that is poorly worded, that's a shocker.
-
You can protect from potential damage, but making it impossible? You haven't remotely demonstrated that. Diminished probabilities are not the same thing as impossibilities.
-
How in the bloody freaking hell data from a damn cyberdeck can magically break the firing pin is beyond the comprehension of anyone with a logical mind, IMO.
You realize that you're saying everyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a logical mind, yes?
-
How in the bloody freaking hell data from a damn cyberdeck can magically break the firing pin is beyond the comprehension of anyone with a logical mind, IMO.
You realize that you're saying everyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a logical mind, yes?
No I'm not. I used "IMO" which precludes your claim that I'm saying something as fact. Well, it does for anyone else anyway.
I'm pointing out that your stated opinion carries with it an unstated opinion as its direct consequence.
-
So, point out how an electronic device that is both separated from the mechanics and has a manual override is going to be exploited electronically in such a way that it's failure prevents the manual override.
That's why it's a two part system. Separation prevents frying electronics from gumming up the works so to speak, and manual override prevents an electronic hack from making the manual operation inaccessible. Where is the third option for exploit here? That is exactly how you make something unable to be taken completely offline by electronic hacking. Sure, it may go out for a second, until someone flips the manual override.
The most they could do is fry the electronics and force the gun not to use electronics or the matrix if it is designed logically. You say I haven't shown anything, point out where the flaw lies.
-
So, point out how an electronic device that is both separated from the mechanics and has a manual override is going to be exploited electronically in such a way that it's failure prevents the manual override.
When the mechanics are damage by the manner in which it fails - seperation does not render that impossible unless you have some sort of complete isolation and insulation, which is not a viable design; at that point, you're basically building the gun twice.
-
It doesn't have to be a complete isolation. That is willful ignorance. It just has to be a connection that cannot interfere with the mechanics in the worst case scenario. If we can do it today with wires, which we can, then there is no reason for them not to be able to do it in 60 years with the tech that has been showcased over the past 20 years of the game world. You don't have to build the gun twice. You just have to design it well.
Basically you're saying separation cannot occur, which just tells me you haven't researched the subject in today's world. At that point, you don't want to research the subject in todays world, so debating the point is futile.
-
Debating the point has always been futile. On both sides of the argument. But here's what I'll tell you about the point we've gotten to in this discussion: it's not just semantic, it's impossible to prove either side right or wrong.
The fiction of the universe allows for the mechanical components to be compromised (but not necessarily destroyed) by disrupting the electronic components. That may not jibe with real-world physics, but it jibes with the fiction of the universe. Unless we had an Ares Predator here to take apart and show you that the fiction is suddenly now fact, there's no way to make you believe in the fiction. You either believe in it or you don't. It's that simple.
-
It doesn't have to be a complete isolation. That is willful ignorance. It just has to be a connection that cannot interfere with the mechanics in the worst case scenario
Except that the issue at hand isn't connection so much as proximity. It's not that the mechanics are non-functional without the electronics, rather, it's that the manner in which the electronics are destroyed also causes damage to the mechanics; this is not incidental damage, but intentional and goal-driven. My point is that the prevention you're talking about requires far more than simple separation; you need something that actually prevents whatever might happen to the electronics for carrying over in any way. In particular, it's important to remember that we don't even know the limits of what could happen to the "electronics", because they use components that simply don't exist today.
-
RHat you do understand that we talking on fire arms, that they go boom do to fire inside of them and have to stand the shock and hit of said fire . i dont get how bricking will dameg the mechanic if how high the temp' need to be for that, it's not only the barel that get hot when you fire it is all of the gun.
-
The explosion is inside the barrel, which is very, very, very specifically designed, built, and tested to handle the pressures it needs to. The rest of the firearm isn't subject to the same standards.
And who says I'm talking about heat? If that were the issue, the result would be your ammo cooking off - you still wouldn't, in practical terms, be able to make much use of the weapon, but it's a very different thing regardless.
-
well from my limited xp with firing guns the body will get hotter and all of the gun will be subject to the blast (recoill?)and the barrel and triger are one neer the other ,then the bareel got to open to reloade so ther is heat going ther, the way brickig is posted it say fire and sparcks. naw i'm glad we don't have to fight abaut ammo geting cooked but you didnt tell me how a bricked eletcronics jam the mechanics without distroing them?
-
In all of this, all I can think of is a recent automotive issue I had. Well, it was a mechanical/electrical part malfunction.
In my car, the trunk latch is a mix of a mechanical latch that is controlled with electrical signals. The mechanical arm failed, and it could have been because of a short from the electrical signal melted/weakened some of the plastic inside of the device, and the latch wouldn't swing into the unlock position despite unlocking it with the key, or with the electrical signals.
Yes, even now, parts are often made with a mix of metal, plastic, and ceramics. So it shouldn't be beyond imagination that a stray electrical signal sent into a device could cause a spike in the heat, which causes it to structurally weaken some of the plastic/metal components. Or maybe a rogue electrical signal causes a vibration which causes micro-fractures in the ceramics, which then it to catastrophically fail at a key time.
In a weapon, the electronic area of the weapon is probably as far away as physically possible from the mechanical components, but it's still contained in a device, there are still linkages where things can go wrong. We have weapons now where the trigger does not activate a hammer, that then swings forward and strikes the ignition plate on a cartridge of ammunition. Instead, the trigger sends an electrical signal which travels and ignites a block of ignition material which then propels the bullet away from the caseless ammunition propellant. So, a Hacker sending signals to fry the innards of those weapons can totally keep the weapon from working.
As for a cased weapon that is still wireless, it could be an overloaded signal that generates such heat in a small area, that it just causes structural harm to the mechanical parts. Warps and weakenes the metal, or melts plastic, etc. Yes, the weapon is designed to withstand the shock and temps of firing in certain locations of the weapon (mainly the firing chamber/barrel), but structural weakening in other areas can do their share of damage to the weapon
-
Except that the issue at hand isn't connection so much as proximity. It's not that the mechanics are non-functional without the electronics, rather, it's that the manner in which the electronics are destroyed also causes damage to the mechanics; this is not incidental damage, but intentional and goal-driven. My point is that the prevention you're talking about requires far more than simple separation; you need something that actually prevents whatever might happen to the electronics for carrying over in any way. In particular, it's important to remember that we don't even know the limits of what could happen to the "electronics", because they use components that simply don't exist today.
Proximity is part of separation. You see, when you design something in an intelligent way, you think to yourself, "What happens if this horribly fails." You find the worst case scenarios (burning, melting, exploding, etc.) and you design with each on in mind. Then, if you're smart, you give it to someone to test it for complete failure. R&D has done this physically for years on physical items. The software industry does this on every major program. Even frivolous software like video game have it done, though not to the extent that life or death software is tested.
The point is, if you are going to put an piece of electronics on the outside of the gun's slide. You make sure that the electronics can not in any possible way damage the slide of the gun. That's part of separation. It's not just, let's put this outside. It's let's find the minimal safe distance and make sure this is outside that range.
.Agonar, cars are actually designed for the electrical parts to break down and cause mechanical issues. They have been since the late eighties. It's how the automotive industry stays in business. This isn't conjecture, as there have been retired automotive execs that blatantly admitted it. It's like light bulbs being designed to burn out. There is a reason the old lighting industry is ticked at companies producing the new 10 year LED lights.
Which comes back to the point I originally stated. For the world to work like this, guns would have to be designed specifically to be brickable. Again, I stated it may make sense for civilian models (safer and they'll probably buy another one). It doesn't make sense for security and military models (they wouldn't take the risk).
As for your other points, if you read the thread, I've already brought them up and pointed out that they've been fixed with today's technology.
-
Which comes back to the point I originally stated. For the world to work like this, guns would have to be designed specifically to be brickable. Again, I stated it may make sense for civilian models (safer and they'll probably buy another one). It doesn't make sense for security and military models (they wouldn't take the risk).
For those that don't want to take the risk (Professionals, experts, military.. anyone that wants their stuff to work when they need it) there's throwbacks. I would imagine that your military squads have enough training that they don't have to rely on the smartgun systems, and integral laser sights. And if they do, then they are probably experienced enough to run silent as much as possible so that their icons aren't seen in cursory matrix examinations. By the experience, they reduce the chances of being bricked down to a minimum, if any.
Whereas your civilians, your amateurs, would probably always go for wireless weapons for the added assistance they get with the weapon. Yes, They probably would buy the wireless weapons, those designed to malfunction and generate repeat customers.
But I digress... In a game, there comes a point where game mechanics, specially balance mechanics, trump the Real World. I have players that think the brickability of a firearm is stupid too. For them, I point to throwbacks. If you want all the nifty added gadgets that are available in the sixth world, then you pay the price. Everything has a price, it's the Shadowrun Mantra.
-
In a game, there comes a point where game mechanics, specially balance mechanics, trump the Real World.
Mechanics should never trump common logic. Especially balance mechanics. You design them around logic. Sure, everything has a price, but the price and benefit both need to make sense.
Let's look at the laser sight.
It puts a dot on the target. Somehow, this doesn't help you hit the target. It just makes it so that you can hit the target better if you were hitting already. However, if it wirelessly connects to the matrix, it somehow puts this dot on the target in a way that helps you shoot as well.
Ok, so the price is wireless on/matrix. The reward is a bonus die to hit. However, where is the logic behind it? That is why it fails, there is no rhyme or reason other than balance, which is poor design.
-
We have weapons now where the trigger does not activate a hammer, that then swings forward and strikes the ignition plate on a cartridge of ammunition. Instead, the trigger sends an electrical signal which travels and ignites a block of ignition material which then propels the bullet away from the caseless ammunition propellant. So, a Hacker sending signals to fry the innards of those weapons can totally keep the weapon from working.
Yes, but those are weapons with Electronic Firing. That's far different from a gun which solely has an external smartgun.
-
Even so, the innards most likely wouldn't be wireless. They would likely connect to externals that are wireless and receive very limited information from them. In most cases they would probably be read only, and have a hardwired delay between accepting commands.
-
I think this conversation has steered in a different direction, again. External smartguns aren't integrated, so disabling the external smartgun wouldn't brick the weapon itself. The weapon itself can be attacked via matrix combat though, allowing the attacker to brick the mechanics of the gun via the electronics of the gun. When did someone mention that bricking the external smartgun would brick the whole weapon?
-
You make sure that the electronics can not in any possible way damage the slide of the gun.
Which, frankly, isn't possible. Completely non-reasonable places like inside the chamber aside, here do you put (say) a battery that, when faulted in the right way, can detonate so that it cannot possibly damage the gun? There is no such place.
And seriously, I could do without the condescension - I may not be a firearms expert, but you need to get past the ludicrous presumption that anyone who disagrees with you cannot understand the principles of design.
-
Which, frankly, isn't possible. Completely non-reasonable places like inside the chamber aside, here do you put (say) a battery that, when faulted in the right way, can detonate so that it cannot possibly damage the gun? There is no such place.
So you use a battery that doesn't detonate when faulted, or, you design the battery's housing so that the blast follows the path of least resistance away from the gun's mechanics (similar to the concept of a grenade sump if that helps).
Neither of those are new or futuristic concepts. They are both fairly fundamental in basic design.
-
Which, frankly, isn't possible. Completely non-reasonable places like inside the chamber aside, here do you put (say) a battery that, when faulted in the right way, can detonate so that it cannot possibly damage the gun? There is no such place.
So you use a battery that doesn't detonate when faulted, or, you design the battery's housing so that the blast follows the path of least resistance away from the gun's mechanics (similar to the concept of a grenade sump if that helps).
Neither of those are new or futuristic concepts. They are both fairly fundamental in basic design.
Presume for a second that due to certain design considerations, an alternative battery isn't a viable option - you could use one, but the tradeoffs simply are not worth it. And as for the whole path of least resistance concept there, I have to assume that would create notable additions to bulk which would be quite the opposite of one of the design goals here; you don't want to effect the ergonomics of the weapon.
-
Seeing as how batteries can fit in, and run visual data on, contacts in SR I don't think those are viable concerns. The batteries would be tiny, and housing, given the high strength of materials in SR shouldn't have to be very thick to shield the gun from the effects, if it's needed at all.
As for tradeoffs, if it keeps the gun from being a useless slag of metal, obviously the tradeoff is worth it.
-
Actually the contacts probably use the bioelectric field, as some other things are known to in SR.
And I'm sorry, but are you really gonna pretend that preventing something that's already supposed to be impossible is worth making the weapon more or less useless for other reasons? Part of the tradeoff is about probability, and the things you do when bricking a weapon would generally be considered so improbable that they wouldn't matter.
-
Yeah, no. Anyone that works with electronics and software knows that "impossible" has no room in that field. Nothing is supposed to be impossible in programming. If you can think of it happening, it will happen eventually. You see, when going through R&D they would have a decker attacking the weapon to see what that decker can do. Unless that decker is a complete imbecile, he's going to eventually brick the electronics, and they would see the effects. They fix the issue and go again. If the effects of the electronics bricking is affecting the mechanical nature, it would be easy to see the issue and fix it. Yes, this is how it works in real life, things are made less useful and effective to be safer and more secure.
-
Yeah, no. Anyone that works with electronics and software knows that "impossible" has no room in that field. Nothing is supposed to be impossible in programming. If you can think of it happening, it will happen eventually. You see, when going through R&D they would have a decker attacking the weapon to see what that decker can do. Unless that decker is a complete imbecile, he's going to eventually brick the electronics, and they would see the effects. They fix the issue and go again. If the effects of the electronics bricking is affecting the mechanical nature, it would be easy to see the issue and fix it. Yes, this is how it works in real life, things are made less useful and effective to be safer and more secure.
Now by that logic there'd never be a hack of anything ever. Whenever someone finds a hole in some piece of security, other informed people didn't think the thing they did was possible.
Just because they have a decker playing white hat doesn't mean they find every possibility; the black hats down the line and other white hats will find others.
And, in point of order, you seem to be assuming that there's one and only one sequence of things done to a device to brick it - I find this assumption ridiculous. It seems to me there would be uncountably many ways to brick a single device.
-
Now by that logic there'd never be a hack of anything ever. Whenever someone finds a hole in some piece of security, other informed people didn't think the thing they did was possible.
Just because they have a decker playing white hat doesn't mean they find every possibility; the black hats down the line and other white hats will find others.
And, in point of order, you seem to be assuming that there's one and only one sequence of things done to a device to brick it - I find this assumption ridiculous. It seems to me there would be uncountably many ways to brick a single device.
Hack, sure, software changes constantly after things leave the factory.
Break the mechanics? No. If you've tested every electronic part by frying, melting, exploding it and fixed the issue, then the mechanical structure should be fine.
I am not assuming there is one sequence of events. I'm assuming that bricking can target any and every electronics system on the device. The key to securing the device is making each and every one of those unable to kill the mechanical guts.
-
Now by that logic there'd never be a hack of anything ever. Whenever someone finds a hole in some piece of security, other informed people didn't think the thing they did was possible.
Just because they have a decker playing white hat doesn't mean they find every possibility; the black hats down the line and other white hats will find others.
And, in point of order, you seem to be assuming that there's one and only one sequence of things done to a device to brick it - I find this assumption ridiculous. It seems to me there would be uncountably many ways to brick a single device.
Hack, sure, software changes constantly after things leave the factory.
Break the mechanics? No. If you've tested every electronic part by frying, melting, exploding it and fixed the issue, then the mechanical structure should be fine.
I am not assuming there is one sequence of events. I'm assuming that bricking can target any and every electronics system on the device. The key to securing the device is making each and every one of those unable to kill the mechanical guts.
Which requires you to be aware of each and every one of them, and each and every consequence of your changes, and on, and on. It's not unlike the principle of bugs in non-trivial software, really: Any non-trivial piece of technology will be breakable forever.
-
Remember, "not all devices are completely useless when bricked," "The firing pin on an assault rifle might not work."
The rules in this section contradict each other quite significantly. I mean at one point we have, "A bricked device is damaged and useless until it is repaired," and then not even a whole paragraph later we have the quote above that says not all device are completely useless.
What? No. That's not "might" as in "it might not work, it might still work" - the "might" is setting a condition for the second half of the sentence. It's explaining how a device being bricked isn't exactly the end of the world, with the following examples:
- A bricked vibro-sword is still a sharp sword.
- A bricked roto-drone will glide to the ground on auto-gyro - it won't crash to the ground and turn into a fireball.
- A bricked lock stays locked - it won't open.
- A bayonet on a bricked firearm still functions.
- Katanas, being non-electronic, can't be bricked.
-
I disagree. It could say "The firing pin on an assault rifle doesn't work, but it's bayonet works..." The two sentences are not the same.
Which requires you to be aware of each and every one of them, and each and every consequence of your changes, and on, and on. It's not unlike the principle of bugs in non-trivial software, really: Any non-trivial piece of technology will be breakable forever.
Physical manufacturing is completely different than bugs in software. That's why I have such a big issue with this. If you aren't aware of each and every one of the electronics you've put on a device, you're a pretty bad engineer. If you don't do your research on the consequences of them failing in each way they can fail, you're still a pretty poor engineer. Those are basic principles.
-
Which requires you to be aware of each and every one of them, and each and every consequence of your changes, and on, and on. It's not unlike the principle of bugs in non-trivial software, really: Any non-trivial piece of technology will be breakable forever.
Physical manufacturing is completely different than bugs in software. That's why I have such a big issue with this. If you aren't aware of each and every one of the electronics you've put on a device, you're a pretty bad engineer. If you don't do your research on the consequences of them failing in each way they can fail, you're still a pretty poor engineer. Those are basic principles.
Being aware of all of your electronics, and being aware of everything that can happen with those electronics in combination and with malicious manipulation are not remotely the same thing. Especially with Shadowrun's blurred-from-the-beginning (see: Crash 1.0) line between hard- and software.
-
Oh my god - this conversation has been repeating itself for 5 pages now. LOL this is ridiculous. If it wasn't for the fact that almost all of the participants are active, useful contributors to other threads, I'd just put the whole thing on ignore. As it is, I keep coming back, hoping that someone has actually made a difference. I guess that's just the eternal optimist in me.
-
The sad thing is, many of the points predate SR5...
-
In a game, there comes a point where game mechanics, specially balance mechanics, trump the Real World.
Mechanics should never trump common logic. Especially balance mechanics. You design them around logic. Sure, everything has a price, but the price and benefit both need to make sense.
Let's look at the laser sight.
It puts a dot on the target. Somehow, this doesn't help you hit the target. It just makes it so that you can hit the target better if you were hitting already. However, if it wirelessly connects to the matrix, it somehow puts this dot on the target in a way that helps you shoot as well.
Ok, so the price is wireless on/matrix. The reward is a bonus die to hit. However, where is the logic behind it? That is why it fails, there is no rhyme or reason other than balance, which is poor design.
Actually, a dot on the target does help you hit your target. If your accuracy is normally 4, and you roll 7 Hits, and your target rolls 4 hits, you miss. That laser sight now lets you keep 5 hits, resulting in one net hit. That laser sight is directly responsible for you hitting your target in that case. Just because it doesn't provide a bonus die to roll doesn't mean it isn't helping. Limit increases can help just as much as, if not more than, a bonus die in some cases.
As for having the hack-proof device.. Most companies probably ship their product as-is because they are running into a hard deadline, and further testing, and refitting, could mean the difference of a successful product, and loss of a contract. But sure, if you really want it in your game, then introduce it. Considering the time it took to hack each and every aspect of the thing, and to replace each and every faulty portion of the thing, the cost would likely be 10-100x the list cost, with an increased availability as well, because they are probably custom jobs, and not mass produced models.
I disagree. It could say "The firing pin on an assault rifle doesn't work, but it's bayonet works..." The two sentences are not the same.
Except that one sentence requires speaking with perfect form and grammar, and the other is a common way of phrasing things... "We might not have any money, but we can still go out window shopping".. Sure, you can tell people that they are not grammatically correct, but people speak they way they want to speak. Being overly critical doesn't change the left-out context of that line and what it meant overall.
In the end, At your table, it's your game. Leave out Wireless bonuses and consequences if you want.
-
I'm pretty sure a hacker could cause all sorts of problems if he has the controls to a gun. If there is any active heating you can disable it causing rounds to cook off, you can force a misfeed, create an out of battery detonation (AKA slamfire). None of these situations depend on any special connection to the the electronic circuitry except that it can control the firing of the firearm, which is clearly stated that the electronics do.
-
In my experience, the best thing for a decker to do is get a mark on the gun prior to the fight beginning and then data bomb that file that's associated with the safety (previous editions described a "safety off" gun as being warm to the sim touch). Even if you're not great with data bombs, you're rolling 10-12 dice vs. 2. The way data bomb damage works, it essentially fries the gun as soon as it's out of the holster.
-
Being aware of all of your electronics, and being aware of everything that can happen with those electronics in combination and with malicious manipulation are not remotely the same thing. Especially with Shadowrun's blurred-from-the-beginning (see: Crash 1.0) line between hard- and software.
Not in engineering. If you're doing it the correct way, those concepts are the same. This goes doubly so for anything that has to be rugged or is being used in a highly targetable area, like security.
Actually, a dot on the target does help you hit your target.
No, it just let's you hit your target better if you're already good at hitting your target. It does not help you hit the target to begin with. An average joe with a mild understanding of shooting (3 Agi, 3 skill) gets no benefit with, say, a Lightfire. It doesn't help him hit his target.
Most companies probably ship their product as-is because they are running into a hard deadline, and further testing, and refitting, could mean the difference of a successful product, and loss of a contract.
Security contracts usually work exactly opposite of this. If you ship a flawed product as-is, you lose contracts and reputation. No-one wants to buy flawed security products, and people rarely trust a company a second time in that field.
None of these situations depend on any special connection to the the electronic circuitry except that it can control the firing of the firearm, which is clearly stated that the electronics do.
Only smartguns can be fired wirelessly.
-
Security contracts usually work exactly opposite of this. If you ship a flawed product as-is, you lose contracts and reputation. No-one wants to buy flawed security products, and people rarely trust a company a second time in that field.
I see you've never worked with a military contractor ;)
-
They follow the same pattern. There is a reason they are moving toward quality systems like the SCAR-H. When they develop in house and then shop the plans to the lowest bidder, it causes quality issues all around. Not to mention, the lowest bidder gets a bad reputation.
The biggest issue with military contracts is that the lowest bidder can give funds to the person in charge of making the decision on what company to go with. Again, a good reason they are eyeing new systems for making those decisions.
-
Security and military contractors are in fact notoriously awful at doing a whole lot of things, especially providing the actual services they get paid for. Your statement that they're all amazing paragons of capitalistic pride who never mess up is about as far away from reality as I think one can humanly get. The Bradley or F-35, the Breda 30, good ol' Papa Nambu which shot you if you sat down, the TEC-9 (which is good for looking real scary on the news, and virtually nothing else), pretty much everything done by KBR, or maybe the ADE 651 which did literally nothing...look, I can call on examples all day.
And this is Shadowrun - every single problem would go double! "Reputation" doesn't matter, because it's not going to be hurt by a few lousy products. The right people have their pockets full, you promise lots of jobs at the factory, and a ton of money flows right into your hands - that's the sign of a good product. If the actual gun has security issues, who cares? This is cyberpunk, not Glorious Make Believe Randian Libertarian Paradise. If important companies cut corners that lead to lesser products and get away with it in real life, it's going to be amplified even more in cyberpunk - not completely vanished for no reason!
-
Security contracts usually work exactly opposite of this. If you ship a flawed product as-is, you lose contracts and reputation. No-one wants to buy flawed security products, and people rarely trust a company a second time in that field.
And sometimes you can even get paid more for sending it out flawed. (http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/20/nsa-reportedly-paid-a-security-firm-millions-to-ship-deliberately-flawed-encryption-technology/) ;)
While they have seen reduced revenue from their work in encryption since then, they are by no means out of the game entirely, which says a bit about both buyer and seller in this shell game.
-
Well yes, spies want to buy flawed products for their targets. Occasionally they get away with that.
"Reputation" doesn't matter, because it's not going to be hurt by a few lousy products.
It most certainly is. Where do you think the term brand loyalty comes from?
If the actual gun has security issues, who cares?
The end user.
The cut corners don't get the giant contracts. They get tossed peanuts. Where are the large contracts at today? Colt with the M16A4. Beretta has the M9. FN has the SCAR-L although that's being dropped for the SCAR-H.
Look around the corner at SR and it's even more important to keep a good reputation. In US a contractor can get a contractor for the US for a decade or longer. In the SR universe how many nations make up what is the US today. They have to peck and fight for each contract and the moment CSA finds out the UCAS's rifles fry when a decker thumbs his nose at them, they're buying something else.
-
It most certainly is. Where do you think the term brand loyalty comes from?
Marketing departments.
-
You know, Wells, one thing you need to remember about Shadowrun: National militiaries have no influence whatsoever anymore. They get to make do with whatever scraps the corps want to sell them.
-
It most certainly is. Where do you think the term brand loyalty comes from?
Marketing departments.
Bingo.
Again, look at the ACTUAL large contracts. Colt? Beretta? Those are peanuts. KBR, Lockheed Martin, these are the guys with the hefty contracts. And you can guarantee they've made no small number of horrible mess ups that in no way hurt their "reputation" in any way.
Again, this vaunted ideal of the free market eternally watching for those who mess up and punishing their reputation accordingly is not a thing that actually exists in real life. And it CERTAINLY isn't going to exist in a genre intended to amplify such things.
Also for what it's worth, deckers are supposed to be notably rare. GOOD deckers that can penetrate a Firewall 6 would be even more rare.
-
Except they aren't rare. Anyone that's gotten training in the field (whether traditional security training at a school, on on the job training through a corp job) can penetrate that Firewall 6. Remember that the skill rating 6 is merely a professional level. An actual good decker (say 8-10) is going to have an even easier time.
Rarity in the world isn't the important aspect here though. What you're ignoring is the target audience. What is security being targeted toward? For corporate and military concerns, deckers are a major threat. Rarity among the populace, yeah that's pretty high. Rarity among people targeting them? That's not nearly as high. A military can bet pretty safely that enemy forces will have deckers in their employ with at least professional training.
-
At average intelligence, you are in fact not getting through that firewall without some difficulty - and part of the rarity is that the gear isn't at all freaking common.
(Edit: I've corrected a typo, but I just want to leave this here as a monument to the irony of my misspelling "intelligence")
-
. A military can bet pretty safely that enemy forces will have deckers in their employ with at least professional training.
Which is why, if you really don't want enemy hackers shutting down your forces, you go non-wireless. You get throwback weapons, run with all wireless stuff off. You're elite, you're professional, you don't need your weapon uplinking with weather satellites. And as such, you won't ever have to worry about enemy Deckers.
If you really have to have that +1 die pool bonus for wireless, then you face the risk of the Deckers.
I mean, seriously. If manufacturers could forsee every thing that could bring them down, you wouldn't have mass recalls of various products every year. The whole point of these is that they are unforseen, and shit happens. I am not aware of anything that is 100% reliable (knives come close, but even they dull or break)... which is odd, since the basis for the argument is that it is so easy for manufacturers to track down every potential fail point and safeguard against it.
-
More like it isn't profitable. (http://youtu.be/l5EY8oXamoM)
-
Non-wireless troops sounds pretty insane, since it means they don't have communication running. So unless they're black ops...
-
Non-wireless troops sounds pretty insane, since it means they don't have communication running. So unless they're black ops...
You take your risks.. they might have wireless communications, and just risk their chatter being overheard, or maybe there's one Decker on Overwatch for each unit of (however many devices can be slaved to his Deck).. But the Special Forces idea can probably operate very efficiently on Hand Signals.
So, it comes down to how much do you need to risk certain things to function. Military with non-wireless weapons and gear should be just fine. This was mostly about the weapons. Having your weapons hacked can really screw you bad. Having your comms hacked.. well, they enemy might learn something, until the squad decides to reboot, change frequencies, whatever.
-
However, Military would very likely be running with Advanced Safety, which requires wireless communication.
-
When is a device not a device? When it’s a persona!
I noticed people mentioned formatting a commlink a few times in the earlier pages. That's actually not possible. The "Format Device" option only works on devices, which Aaron has clarified, does not include commlinks and cyberdecks when they're in use, because they're now a persona. The book isn't too vague about it either.
When a person uses a device to connect to the Matrix, the device’s icon is subsumed by the persona’s icon, so it’s basically gone from the Matrix until the persona jacks out.
If you're using the commlink at all, you're logged into it, thus it is now a persona. If it's the master of a PAN, you're likely using it (you're logged in, using your fake SIN and having your Owner mark on stuff) to communicate, see AR, and all kinds of thing. So the Format Device action isn't an end-all response in hacking.
. A military can bet pretty safely that enemy forces will have deckers in their employ with at least professional training.
Which is why, if you really don't want enemy hackers shutting down your forces, you go non-wireless. You get throwback weapons, run with all wireless stuff off. You're elite, you're professional, you don't need your weapon uplinking with weather satellites. And as such, you won't ever have to worry about enemy Deckers.
If two battalions are facing against each other, and using the same gear, but one side has a full tactical network going, wireless smartguns, sharing live video feed with each other, painting targets with AR, communicating with each other silently without needing to use their hands, with everyone having a live stream of the ammo count, heart rate, bio signs, and more of everyone else in their team? That team is going to have an edge.
The idea is that both teams want to be the ones with that edge, so both teams also employ a decker to simultaneously sabotage the enemy tacnet while protecting theirs. Under no circumstance would one team just remove the huge edge that kind of communication provides and just hope the enemy does the same. Even if the non-wireless team has a decker as well who's trying to fuck up the opposition's tacnet, unless he stops it immediately, across the whole network, the opposition still got some advantage, and any advantage that is given early enough can completely set the tone of a confrontation.
-
Geek the Decker!
At last they serve a useful function, drawing fire away from us mages. ;)
-
Geek the Decker!
At last they serve a useful function, drawing fire away from us mages. ;)
I just imagine a corporate sniper sweating profusely as he moves his crosshairs over each team member.
"They're ALL priority targets...!"
At that point the only option is an air strike.
-
I can't really agree entirely, firebug, because we have actually seen the exact opposite in the past years.
Part of the reason the current Land Warrior/Future Force Warrior system hasn't been widely implemented is its vulnerability to sabotage. The main design principle behind the current phase of it is separation of critical parts from tactical parts, so that wireless sabotage cannot remove a soldier's ability from the field. In other words, they are designing it intelligently. It's last field tests went extraordinarily well, but we still don't field it in force, despite it's major advantages, because of these few flaws that it has.
The system is designed to keep as much information localized to each soldier as possible, while transferring only what it needs to wirelessly. Keep in mind, it's still not considered viable for anything other than field tests even though it doesn't destroy a soldiers weapons when hacked.
What can the Land Warrior/Future Force Warrior system do:
-Shoot Around Corners
-Target Acquisition
-Thermographic/IR Capability
-Video Feed (Wireless Transmit)
-GPS transmitter/Dead Reckoning Module (essentially and Orientation System)
-Combat Identification to Reduce Friendly Fire (two versions, one scans the video feed to analyze uniforms with no need for wireless information, one reads the GPS transmitter and checks against the scanned video)
-Eye Display for tactical information (maps, troop placement, weapon viewpoint or wireless information from other soldiers with system)
-Health Monitor (Wirelessly transmits health conditions to nearby soldiers and/or officers)
-Subvocal Mic and Eye Tracking Operating System for hands free communication and computer management
That's just what it can do today, and by that, I mean three years ago when the last field test was released (which was probably done a year or more before that. The plans for 2032 literally blow the combat gear in SR out of the water.
The point here is that only a few of the current systems use wireless capabilities, and it's still not considered viable because of it's wireless vulnerabilities. Transmitting video feeds (which can be shut off), soldier location (which can be shut off), one form of Friendly Fire ID (which can be shut off without negating the entire system), a bit of the tac display (most mission information is loaded to start with), and the Health Monitoring (which can be shut off), those by themselves make the system unfeasible because of the information they give the enemy.
In 2007 they almost scrapped the program entirely because they were having issues getting the weight down. They were two pounds over their goal. If two pounds of weight makes them consider scrapping it, I can't imagine what telling them, "you can use this, but it opens up your guns to being destroyed by hackers," would do. That's multitudes worse than their current issues with the system.
It's not that they would never use this system, it's been field tested many times. It's that this system would never go into full production with gaping design flaws like SR has.
Some people say that soldiers wouldn't need the extra edge from a Smartgun, but who exactly is that Smartgun designed for? These are combat systems. They're designed for police forces and soldiers and security teams.
-
Wells: Modern militaries get influence on design and so on that they don't get in Shadowrun. In SR, they're stuck choosing from what the corps want to provide.
-
Wells, I can't help but get the impression that you're too focused on semantics to really enjoy the current system. It sounds like you want/need a system that's far more realistic and gritty, and Shadowrun has never really offered that in one package. There are lots of ways to houserule the things you seem to want, but the cold reality of the situation is that Catalyst's largest consumer base doesn't really care about that level of reality in their games. In fact, if you look at this excellent blurb in the Run & Gun preview 3:
REALISM VS. COMBAT ABSTRACTION:
STRIKING A BALANCE
Not all gamers like the same kind of game. Imaginations run at different levels, and while some people are firmly grounded in the real world and like their games to mirror reality as closely as they can, others want quick and simple rules to provide groundwork for their storytelling descriptions. Still others want to find a way to balance it all as best one can and still have a game that is fun to play for everyone.
Shadowrun, Fifth Edition tried to follow that middle path, striving to balance the rules for supermetahuman-combat-monsters and socially oriented characters alike. Combat is one of the hardest places to strike that balance.
We all know how long combat can take when we’re sitting around the table trying to stay focused on the action, especially in this fast-paced world with computers on our hips that make the devices of Shadowrun’s birth era look like the stone tools of the Neanderthals. Everyone has heard the classic Shadowrun complaint about going out for pizza while the decker does his thing, but what about the other side of the coin. What about going out for pizza while the street sam does his thing? It’s all about balance.
Ask anyone who has ever been in a real firefight—whether military, law enforcement, or otherwise—what it was like, and you are likely to get a description that comes nowhere close to your gamemaster’s last description of the firefight in your game. Lining up the sights is a luxury of the sniper; taking down an opponent with a single shot happens, but not usually in the midst of bullets flying everywhere; the awful click of an empty chamber is far more common on the mean streets of the real
world; and sticking your head out to enter the fight and even the odds for your side takes either courage, stupidity, calculation, desperation, or some combination of those. Playing a roleplaying game with rules to cover all the realistic difficulties of combat would probably require a series of mental tests to simulate your character getting up the gumption to act, then another few to decide on whether it’s the best idea, a few more to judge the morality and overcome the fear of potential repercussions, then some rolling to hit the target (a lot if we were rolling for each bullet), some damage-checking rolls, and then after it’s all over some rolls to see what
kind of damage has been done to your psyche for injuring, maiming, or even killing another sentient being. While a degree of realism in role-playing is good, taking it to that level takes away a fair amount of the fun.
Instead, many aspects of combat are abstracted, and some of the psychological aspects show up in how a player role players their character rather than in a series of dice rolls. There are also certain aspects of realism built into the rules, things that are sometimes overlooked. Get injured and knocked down, and you need a roll to get back up and get back in the fight. Bring someone into a fight who isn’t accustomed to being in the middle of flying bullets, like a mild-mannered newbie face, and you can use a Composure Test to see if he freaks out when blood from one of his teammates splatters all over him. The basics are simple enough and easy to use that sometimes we just stop there, but digging a little deeper pulls out those gems that really get the players thinking about grabbing some cover instead of standing out in the open. Once you have some of those gems from the core rulebook integrated in to make things more fun, you have this book to provide more ways to bring in challenges and realistic touches while keeping the game fast-moving and fun.
I think the developers really tried to find the balance between realism and abstraction, and they tried very hard to make a system that's fun for the majority of players. As with any system that involves real-world physics, science, etc. the abstraction bit can be a bit too strong for some people. In a game like D&D, the answer can always be "it's magic!" and everyone moves on. In Shadowrun, there are realistic physics involved, and not everything can be realistic to make a game like Shadowrun work.
-
Geek the Decker!
At last they serve a useful function, drawing fire away from us mages. ;)
I just imagine a corporate sniper sweating profusely as he moves his crosshairs over each team member.
"They're ALL priority targets...!"
At that point the only option is an air strike.
Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. ;)
-
Wells: Modern militaries get influence on design and so on that they don't get in Shadowrun. In SR, they're stuck choosing from what the corps want to provide.
In SR, the corps effectively have their own militaries, who would have the same influence on the design of their gear. They're in an arms race against each other as well. I mean heck, they actually throw full-fledged battles against each other in Desert Wars to showcase their newest developments each year.
-
Wells: Modern militaries get influence on design and so on that they don't get in Shadowrun. In SR, they're stuck choosing from what the corps want to provide.
In SR, the corps effectively have their own militaries, who would have the same influence on the design of their gear. They're in an arms race against each other as well. I mean heck, they actually throw full-fledged battles against each other in Desert Wars to showcase their newest developments each year.
And they get to use whatever they're damn well told.
Also, there's anumber of projects where military influence on design just screwed everything up, anyways.
-
Before I forget...
Except they aren't rare. Anyone that's gotten training in the field (whether traditional security training at a school, on on the job training through a corp job) can penetrate that Firewall 6. Remember that the skill rating 6 is merely a professional level. An actual good decker (say 8-10) is going to have an even easier time.
This is a really weird way of looking at it. Level 6 is not "merely professional," it means you can easily sell your skills on the open market. Rating 4 is "professional level for most jobs." 8 means you are so sought after that corps will actively attempt to extract you from other corps. That's pretty far from the start of "an actual good decker." And 10 would make you one of the best in your country. You have to REALLY skew things to assume that's going to be the norm.
"An actual good decker" would normally fall between 4-6. At 7+, you are explicitly noteworthy.
-
Professor, that's more or less true. Level 6 is now considered to be Professional, with exceptional being around 8 or so. Most of the elite security forces for corporations rank most of their skills in the 8 range.
-
I can't really agree entirely, firebug, because we have actually seen the exact opposite in the past years.
Part of the reason the current Land Warrior/Future Force Warrior system hasn't been widely implemented is its vulnerability to sabotage. The main design principle behind the current phase of it is separation of critical parts from tactical parts, so that wireless sabotage cannot remove a soldier's ability from the field. In other words, they are designing it intelligently. It's last field tests went extraordinarily well, but we still don't field it in force, despite it's major advantages, because of these few flaws that it has.
The system is designed to keep as much information localized to each soldier as possible, while transferring only what it needs to wirelessly. Keep in mind, it's still not considered viable for anything other than field tests even though it doesn't destroy a soldiers weapons when hacked.
What can the Land Warrior/Future Force Warrior system do:
-Shoot Around Corners
-Target Acquisition
-Thermographic/IR Capability
-Video Feed (Wireless Transmit)
-GPS transmitter/Dead Reckoning Module (essentially and Orientation System)
-Combat Identification to Reduce Friendly Fire (two versions, one scans the video feed to analyze uniforms with no need for wireless information, one reads the GPS transmitter and checks against the scanned video)
-Eye Display for tactical information (maps, troop placement, weapon viewpoint or wireless information from other soldiers with system)
-Health Monitor (Wirelessly transmits health conditions to nearby soldiers and/or officers)
-Subvocal Mic and Eye Tracking Operating System for hands free communication and computer management
That's just what it can do today, and by that, I mean three years ago when the last field test was released (which was probably done a year or more before that. The plans for 2032 literally blow the combat gear in SR out of the water.
The point here is that only a few of the current systems use wireless capabilities, and it's still not considered viable because of it's wireless vulnerabilities. Transmitting video feeds (which can be shut off), soldier location (which can be shut off), one form of Friendly Fire ID (which can be shut off without negating the entire system), a bit of the tac display (most mission information is loaded to start with), and the Health Monitoring (which can be shut off), those by themselves make the system unfeasible because of the information they give the enemy.
In 2007 they almost scrapped the program entirely because they were having issues getting the weight down. They were two pounds over their goal. If two pounds of weight makes them consider scrapping it, I can't imagine what telling them, "you can use this, but it opens up your guns to being destroyed by hackers," would do. That's multitudes worse than their current issues with the system.
It's not that they would never use this system, it's been field tested many times. It's that this system would never go into full production with gaping design flaws like SR has.
Some people say that soldiers wouldn't need the extra edge from a Smartgun, but who exactly is that Smartgun designed for? These are combat systems. They're designed for police forces and soldiers and security teams.
Source?
Right, I'm betting you don't have one, beyond media speculation and official reports. Keep in mind that experimental tech is just that, experimental. Army is never going to utilize something without extensive field testing. Look at how long it took them to replace something as mechanically simple as a rifle, for Pete's sake.
Wireless vulnerabilities are far down the list of issues with Future Warrior, you can take my word on that...
And Firebug, an air or artillery strike is definitely the better option in a target rich environment. Bring the rain :-)
-
Well let's see, there's:
How Stuff Works
Defense-Update
Armedforces-int
Military Technologies
as well of the Modeling and Simulation packet that has been made public to journalists just to name a few.
Of course they aren't going to release it without field testing it. The Land Warrior system has been in testing since '94 and has since been renamed to the Future Warrior. That's two decades of testing. That said, the journalists and reports being pushed out disagree with your assessment that wireless vulnerabilities are "far down the list," but I guess I should take your multitude of sources for it. After all, scientific break downs and official reports are worthless because you, some random guy on the internet, say so.
-
Source?
Right, I'm betting you don't have one, beyond media speculation and official reports. Keep in mind that experimental tech is just that, experimental. Army is never going to utilize something without extensive field testing. Look at how long it took them to replace something as mechanically simple as a rifle, for Pete's sake.
My information is a bit dated now, but back in 1999 I was almost assigned to the post testing this. At the time, from what I had been told, the hold up had been with the rifle; there were complaints that the original version was too heavy (which I found laughable, as it was supposed to still be lighter than a M203). The company developing it switched to a lighter weight of plastic, which caused its own set of problems: When asked what the current problem with the weapon was, a NCO grabbed it by the barrel and buttstock, and easily broke it over his knee. The weapon was sent back for redesigning. I have no idea what the current problems are.
-
Dinendae
That sounds about right.
-
I've worked with some of the modeling and simulation that Wells describes. The Future Force Warrior system is a pipe dream at this point. It cannot do many of the things described, though in theory it should be possible to perform all of the tasks that he describes.
I can't really agree entirely, firebug, because we have actually seen the exact opposite in the past years.
Part of the reason the current Land Warrior/Future Force Warrior system hasn't been widely implemented is its vulnerability to sabotage.
I call bull on this. The main reason is hasn't been implemented is because of miniaturization costs. To outfit a single warrior with this system, you could outfit a whole squad with the current tech.
The main design principle behind the current phase of it is separation of critical parts from tactical parts, so that wireless sabotage cannot remove a soldier's ability from the field. In other words, they are designing it intelligently. It's last field tests went extraordinarily well, but we still don't field it in force, despite it's major advantages, because of these few flaws that it has.
I'd be fascinated to know how you are aware of the current phase of development of this project. I have friends who are involved in the development of this project, and they can't tell me crap about it, even with my clearance.
-Shoot Around Corners
-Target Acquisition
-Thermographic/IR Capability
-Video Feed (Wireless Transmit)
-GPS transmitter/Dead Reckoning Module (essentially and Orientation System)
-Combat Identification to Reduce Friendly Fire (two versions, one scans the video feed to analyze uniforms with no need for wireless information, one reads the GPS transmitter and checks against the scanned video)
-Eye Display for tactical information (maps, troop placement, weapon viewpoint or wireless information from other soldiers with system)
-Health Monitor (Wirelessly transmits health conditions to nearby soldiers and/or officers)
-Subvocal Mic and Eye Tracking Operating System for hands free communication and computer management
Shooting around corners is done by a camera that allows for aiming around the corner. It's hardly "shooting around corners." It's more like "you can do what you've always done, but more accurately and safely."
Target acquisition is a dream still. More accurately, the system can identify movement and if the object moving doesn't have an IFF indicator it's designated.
Thermographic/IR is real and functional based on the info that I have.
Video feed is also functional, as is wireless transmission. However, most of the places where something like this will see action have spotty wireless connections at best. Mountains disrupt radio signals, so satellites are required and that would mean dedicated satellite time for each squad. Kind of a no-go for most places, but it's feasible in some AOs.
GPS/Dead Reckoning is absolutely integrated. But it's certainly nothing we don't have access to right now either. It's hardly futuristic.
Combat ID is something I haven't heard about being integrated yet. Doesn't mean it hasn't - it's certainly feasible.
Eye display is something that supposedly works, but I haven't heard of anyone having it work yet. Since this type of tech has been around in HUDs of aircraft for a long time it should be able to work. The problem is probably again with integration.
Health monitors are something we have right now. The trick is that they're trying to work out a smaller, lighter, less invasive method of doing health monitoring. Some of the new polymer-based processors should be able to provide this functionality, but it's still a ways out from being perfected.
The subvocal microphone is legit. The eye tracking system is running into some issues - namely how to process data fast enough to make it useful in a combat situation. Last I heard (and this is a rumor), the eye tracking system would be disabled by a lot of the test soldiers when entering combat because it was too busy.
That's just what it can do today, and by that, I mean three years ago when the last field test was released (which was probably done a year or more before that. The plans for 2032 literally blow the combat gear in SR out of the water.
You need to not get your info from TV shows and websites. All of that info is full of speculation and opinion. You need to talk to the people involved and get what is referred to as "actionable intel" before you claim to know something. Especially something with a lot of secrecy and a murky-yet-fluid contracting system. Let's not forget about all of these projects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_projects#United_States), many of which were cancelled after going way over budget and way over deadline. This could be one of those casualties.
-
Shooting around corners is done by a camera that allows for aiming around the corner. It's hardly "shooting around corners." It's more like "you can do what you've always done, but more accurately and safely."
The camera attaches to the eye display on the helmet subsystem allowing the person to aim. It's pretty much exactly what a smartgun around the corner shows on an image link minus the ballistics processor. The german IdZ system is working on the ballistics processor for the sights on the G22 and M82 rifles that they are testing it on.
Target acquisition is a dream still. More accurately, the system can identify movement and if the object moving doesn't have an IFF indicator it's designated.
Yeah...no. Target acquisitions is a basic principle in modern robotics. Without getting into detail, it combines many algorithms used for facial recognition as well as many of the algorithms used to calculate speed on anti-air targeting systems. Target acquisition isn't just for combat. Most robotics that involves moving, catching, or placing something on their own use target acquisition software.
Last I heard (and this is a rumor), the eye tracking system would be disabled by a lot of the test soldiers when entering combat because it was too busy.
The problem is actually tied to peripheral vision. The lenses used in the modern system make it so that the system doesn't function unless the soldier can stare straight into it. There usually isn't time for that in combat.
You need to not get your info from TV shows and websites. All of that info is full of speculation and opinion. You need to talk to the people involved and get what is referred to as "actionable intel" before you claim to know something. Especially something with a lot of secrecy and a murky-yet-fluid contracting system. Let's not forget about all of these projects, many of which were cancelled after going way over budget and way over deadline. This could be one of those casualties.
Military Technologies is considered a reliable source in the industry as are the the released testing and simulation. You can call it speculation if you want, but they have clearly defined goals and state what they have accomplished. As you'll note from the quote you used, there is normally a four to five year gap between any information that comes out and what they are currently doing.
Of course, you can choose to ignore sources that are considered legit for research purposes. Most of what they claim to be able to do has been done in some degree in the civilian market.
-
What you're describing isn't target acquisition so much as it's object tracking. It has been done for a long time, but determining the difference between friend and foe is done with IFF recognition, which is a different field entirely. Also IFF has been done a long time, but the way that they're trying to do IFF with the Future Force system is completely different. I worked with the guy who developed the technology of making Predator drones accept orders from a ground unit's hand signal. I'm familiar with the difference.
I consider real talk with real sources to be more reliable than the news that gets pieced together by the media. The point of all of this is that you don't really know what you're talking about, because you don't really have any hands-on experience with any of this stuff. You're piecing things together from multiple sources and then acting like an expert. Stop it.
It's reasonable to assume that no one here is truly an expert on weapons, electronics, etc. Especially when it comes to Shadowrun. Let's all just play the game and stop getting bogged down in the details.
-
I consider real talk with real sources to be more reliable than the news that gets pieced together by the media.
Depends on the media in question and the the subject you are researching. Face to face talking can be great for a single aspect of a project that the person works on, but is rarely beneficial for an understanding of the whole project.
As for using multiple sources, that's called good research. You find reliable sources for a given topic. Preferably unbiased, but you can use biased sources as long as you find ones on the other side of the fence to allow an unbiased review of your information.
As for IFF, you're correct, they're trying a method that does not require the sort of data passing the Mark XII system used. Instead they want something that works without passing information at all. Hence why they're trying the visual recognition database for identifying uniforms. Sure, it can't identify an enemy with any assurance, but that is the classic way that IFF works. It shows allies, not foes.
Object tracking is the part where it gets speed, angle of movement, ect. and highlights the target box you need to hit if the target stays on course. Modern models also use common maneuvers to determine likely target boxes, and more recent models actively monitor and watch the target's movements to make determinations more accurate.
Target acquisition is where the system highlight high value targets that need to be targeted. Combined with object tracking it makes eliminating high value targets easier than ever. High value targets can be anything from specific people to specific weapons (hence the use of facial recognition algorithms that I mentioned).
I'm not an expert on military technology, but most of this is becoming fairly standard capability in the software and robotics industry as a whole, which is the industry I work in.
-
I'm not an expert on military technology, but most of this is becoming fairly standard capability in the software and robotics industry as a whole, which is the industry I work in.
Cool. Glad we sorted that out. Can you please stop talking down to people now? You made statements that were true, but aren't necessarily applicable to the discussion, and then made people feel stupid for not knowing what you know.
-
What exactly isn't applicable to what I was discussing?
-
I'd rather not flood the thread with text, so I'll use the quotes and leave the quote empty. if you want, you can follow the link to the original text. Not all of this is out of this particular thread either, because that would mean that we'd have to have this argument over and over for each thread. The short version of all of this is that you decided to bring military contracts, military contractors, and military equipment into conversations that have nothing to do with those subjects. You helped to derail this thread for over 5 pages, and it's getting both annoying and insulting. In other threads, you have been flat-out insulting to people who either don't agree with you, or don't know what you know.
-
Everyone has the same ability to do research. I work writing software manuals and reports, but I can just as easily write reports on anything with ample time to research the topic.
You put a lot of quotes into there, but I don't see a single one where the information was not directly relevant to what another poster put forth or explicitly asked for by a poster. If you're annoyed, or insulted, by taking a realistic and informed approach to something, that is your problem.
-
I'm annoyed that you're perpetuating conversations that derail topics. This is the original post of the thread:
My decker's getting interested in bricking weapons during firefights - which is good because that's useful.
However, it's not stated if different weapons have different device ratings. Page 234 has a table for device ratings and classified weapons as device rating 2. Unless there's an official rule elsewhere, do I assume all technological weapons have device rating 2?
Now, way down below the thread started to derail thanks to a post by Maelstrom (another infamous derailer). Granted, he wasn't trying to be malicious, he was simply stating how his GM runs his table. But by then the damage was done. Ultimately the discussion was still about bricking weapons, and hadn't gone to the absurd lengths it got to though. That I lay squarely at your feet, Wells.
Sure, Maelstrom started the derailing, but it got back on track. Twilight took it off the rails again, but stopped perpetuating the derailing. You took it from page 4 to page 13. That's 9 pages of derailing.
-
*salutes Namikaze*
We don't always see eye to eye on things, but thanks for picking up this one :)
If you're ever in Houston, you'll have to let me buy you a beer...
And to get back on topic (at least what the original topic was, I have no idea how far off topic this got for the last four pages), this is why you slave your gun to a Rating 7 commlink, or have your decker protect your gear.
Alternatively, this is why you don't run wireless at all, if you want to go at it old school stylee.
-
I'm annoyed that you're perpetuating conversations that derail topics.
I am so sorry that this offends you. Topics change directions. That's part of life. Get over it. The direction it headed in was tied to the original question by speaking on whether guns should be non-functioning when bricked. Again, if this is offensive, you could always not participate in it or read it.
-
I'm not offended. I'm just sick of this. It's like if someone disagrees with you, you just keep arguing and repeating yourself until they give up. That's not what I would call constructive or useful by any definition of the words. That's being a bully, plain and simple. And I'm tired of your bullying. I have a choice to ignore you, but you're not always like this. There are times when you are constructive, and you contribute to a discussion. But then there are times like this, where it's just tiresome and irritating, like a mosquito that I can't seem to swat.
I respect that you have a lot of knowledge, and I respect that you're usually right about rules interpretations (at least in my opinion). But now you've gone and used that knowledge and respect as a bit of a blunt weapon, clubbing people into leaving the thread. People that also have valid interpretations and opinions.
-
It's called debate for a reason. If you can't support your side, then their is a flaw in the logic for your side. Knowledge is the key to any logical discussion. It isn't "a blunt weapon," and seeing it that way is probably why it bothers you. Please, put me on ignore if logical discussion is going to make you sick and annoyed.
-
Telling contractors and vets that your Popular Mechanics-inspired knowledge of all things military is superior to theirs isn't exactly logic. Indeed, your seemingly limitless ability to brush off the arguments of essentially every single person that disagrees with you suggests to me that logic isn't paramount to your posts.
There are a lot of gray areas in the rules right now. Part of that is because there's only one real book out so far and part of that is that book was not edited in a consistent fashion. A lot of debates over rules will, inevitably, boil down to both sides saying, "Well, we'll have to wait and see. We just can't know right now." And that's okay. There's no need to pointlessly drag a thread out seven more pages to quibble over conjecture. In editions 1-3, people complained that deckers had nothing to do (and were impossible to understand when they did). In 4e, people complained that deckers could hack from the far side of the world. 5e wireless rules address both these things. Deckers now have more options than before, and are strongly incentivized to be with the team, which makes for a smoother at-table experience. The wireless rules exist to integrate the Matrix more seamlessly with the meat world. Is some of it shoehorned? Sure, but who cares? It's a RPG with elves and dragons--if suspension of disbelief is going to be a problem for a player, he's picked the wrong habit. My number one concern is that people at the table are happy, not whether or not someone's firing pin has a microchip.
-
It's not logical. And it's not a debate. This is a discussion about how wireless works with weapons. And you are using your knowledge as a blunt weapon because if you'll notice the number of people that have dropped out of this thread since you started up on Page 4 is staggering.
List of those that have fallen beneath the battering of your "debate":
ImaginalDisc, RIP page 4
MaxKojote, RIP page 5
Mithlas, RIP page 5
Xenon, RIP page 7
ZeConster, RIP page 9
Insaniac99, RIP page 10
ProfessorCirno, RIP page 11
Agonar, RIP page 11
firebug, RIP page 11
RHat, not dead yet!
Kincaid, RIP page 10 (and with a miraculous comeback on Page 13 he's back in it, folks!)
So those are the people that have disagreed with you at some point in the thread, and most of them are no longer contributing to the discussion. While I'm no mind reader, I can see that by the proliferation of your posts in those same pages, and by your responses to some of their contributions, you may be the cause behind them not wanting to participate anymore.
Kicking everyone around and then claiming some sort of "victory" when they all leave is childish.
As I stated, I'd rather not ignore you. I do that only to people that are completely out of their gourds. But if you honestly can't take what I'm saying to be constructive criticism intended to get you back on the track of being a positive contributor to the forums, then you are probably out of your gourd.
-
This is a discussion about how wireless works with weapons.
That's part of it. The bulk of what I have debated is how bricking the electronics on a weapon should, intelligently, impact said weapon and if certain designs would be blatantly flawed.
-
And here comes the repetitive bashing of the same argument, and the ignoring of the rest of the facts. This is getting old, Wells. Just let it go. Please. I'm done here. I've said my piece, and I don't consider this to be a resignation of my point so much as an attempt to not do more damage than has already been done. Please think of whether or not your point is important enough to you to damage your reputation on the forums and in the community.
-
And here comes the repetitive bashing of the same argument, and the ignoring of the rest of the facts. This is getting old, Wells. Just let it go. Please. I'm done here. I've said my piece, and I don't consider this to be a resignation of my point so much as an attempt to not do more damage than has already been done. Please think of whether or not your point is important enough to you to damage your reputation on the forums and in the community.
Just want to say, I've been reading but decided back on page 10 it was pointless to try to rebut any position; I'm fully with you here Namikaze.
-
List of those that have fallen beneath the battering of your "debate":
ImaginalDisc, RIP page 4
MaxKojote, RIP page 5
Mithlas, RIP page 5
Xenon, RIP page 7
ZeConster, RIP page 9
Insaniac99, RIP page 10
ProfessorCirno, RIP page 11
Agonar, RIP page 11
firebug, RIP page 11
RHat, not dead yet!
Kincaid, RIP page 10 (and with a miraculous comeback on Page 13 he's back in it, folks!)
If nothing else, this stands as proof positive of one thing: I am a stubborn bastard. :P
-
We need a rep score, like the actual Shadowland/grid!
-
We need a rep score, like the actual Shadowland/grid!
We had one. Bad things happened.
-
We need a rep score, like the actual Shadowland/grid!
Happened once before I joined the forum; I understand a lot of people complained about it and thus it was removed. Besides, while the website seems to have like at least 60 people viewing it at all times, the number of especially active posters is small enough that you can recognize posters and form your own opinions easily enough.
In an attempt to bring this thread's discussion closer in line with the title, I wanna ask something.
Since it seems the Device Rating of gear is largely software-based, would you allow players to spend money to upgrade the device rating of things like smartguns? Cyberware's Device Rating goes up with its grade I believe, but most miscellaneous electronics are just kind of set at 1 or 2 I think. Would it be worth upgrading their DR if it were possible?
-
We need a rep score, like the actual Shadowland/grid!
Happened once before I joined the forum; I understand a lot of people complained about it and thus it was removed. Besides, while the website seems to have like at least 60 people viewing it at all times, the number of especially active posters is small enough that you can recognize posters and form your own opinions easily enough.
In an attempt to bring this thread's discussion closer in line with the title, I wanna ask something.
Since it seems the Device Rating of gear is largely software-based, would you allow players to spend money to upgrade the device rating of things like smartguns? Cyberware's Device Rating goes up with its grade I believe, but most miscellaneous electronics are just kind of set at 1 or 2 I think. Would it be worth upgrading their DR if it were possible?
I'm really not sure about the idea that DR is just software; it seems to me that, for example, the increased DR of alpha/beta/deltaware would be due at least in part to better and more expensive hardware. Same with better commlinks...
-
It's called debate for a reason. If you can't support your side, then their is a flaw in the logic for your side. Knowledge is the key to any logical discussion. It isn't "a blunt weapon," and seeing it that way is probably why it bothers you. Please, put me on ignore if logical discussion is going to make you sick and annoyed.
Debates and discussions are two entirely different things.
List of those that have fallen beneath the battering of your "debate":
ImaginalDisc, RIP page 4
MaxKojote, RIP page 5
Mithlas, RIP page 5
Xenon, RIP page 7
ZeConster, RIP page 9
Insaniac99, RIP page 10
ProfessorCirno, RIP page 11
Agonar, RIP page 11
firebug, RIP page 11
RHat, not dead yet!
Kincaid, RIP page 10 (and with a miraculous comeback on Page 13 he's back in it, folks!)
Actually, in my case it's mostly due to a disagreement with someone else in another topic reaching a level where even reading other topics requires a lot of willpower on my end. I didn't even notice Wells's semantics response to my page-9 post until just now (but it does remind me of the whole "Initiative vs. Initiative" argument, and that's not a good thing).
-
In an attempt to bring this thread's discussion closer in line with the title, I wanna ask something.
Since it seems the Device Rating of gear is largely software-based, would you allow players to spend money to upgrade the device rating of things like smartguns? Cyberware's Device Rating goes up with its grade I believe, but most miscellaneous electronics are just kind of set at 1 or 2 I think. Would it be worth upgrading their DR if it were possible?
It would be significantly hardware and software based. Theoretically, there should already be a pretty large gap in device ratings. An off the shelf hunters grade smartgun should be a different rating than a military grade smartgun. I don't think it would normally be worthwhile to actually upgrade a device rating, given how cheap the systems are, but it shouldn't be hard to buy a better version of the system. Using the table from p. 234, I'd say a 50% markup for every boost in DR until it hits 5. So, a military grade Image Scope (DR 4) would cost 600.
Then again, I would automatically boost weapons up by their design (personal, CorpSec, Military, Black Ops) automatically like vehicles and other devices are stated to be.
-
Since it seems the Device Rating of gear is largely software-based, would you allow players to spend money to upgrade the device rating of things like smartguns? Cyberware's Device Rating goes up with its grade I believe, but most miscellaneous electronics are just kind of set at 1 or 2 I think. Would it be worth upgrading their DR if it were possible?
You can't quite do this in 4E where we have the expansion books for this material, but you can get close. Given that device rating is a little more important in 5E, I would expect such options to be in Data Trails. I personally don't see any reason why it shouldn't be possible (at least in limited extents), but I'm not sure it would be worth the expense.
-
Since it seems the Device Rating of gear is largely software-based, would you allow players to spend money to upgrade the device rating of things like smartguns? Cyberware's Device Rating goes up with its grade I believe, but most miscellaneous electronics are just kind of set at 1 or 2 I think. Would it be worth upgrading their DR if it were possible?
You can't quite do this in 4E where we have the expansion books for this material, but you can get close. Given that device rating is a little more important in 5E, I would expect such options to be in Data Trails. I personally don't see any reason why it shouldn't be possible (at least in limited extents), but I'm not sure it would be worth the expense.
The expense of it is a large factor. I agree that it should be feasible.. but, I know my character would rather just have a second Ares Predator waiting in case the first is bricked, than spend who knows how much money one or two extra defense dice in hacking tests.
A Determined Hacker won't be stopped by an extra die or two, but imagine when their look of victory turns to horror as you pull out a replacement Predator and have at them.
-
We need a rep score, like the actual Shadowland/grid!
We had one. Bad things happened.
Yeah, in my experience, rep scores or "EXP systems" or being able to give comments "likes" inevitably just leads to extreme cliques and terrible cheerleading.
Also I stopped posting because frankly I'm too busy doing other things (which include two SR5 games, though both online. I think I just launched an Americar into orbit in one. Wanna talk about stuff that's broken, try bringing up Speed and the Momentum power!)) to beat my head against this brick wall any further. I've said my share, the response was to ignore it and continue spouting the exact same things. That's my signal to do something more productive.
...Like turn getaway cars into deep space exploration vehicles.
-
Since it seems the Device Rating of gear is largely software-based, would you allow players to spend money to upgrade the device rating of things like smartguns? Cyberware's Device Rating goes up with its grade I believe, but most miscellaneous electronics are just kind of set at 1 or 2 I think. Would it be worth upgrading their DR if it were possible?
You can't quite do this in 4E where we have the expansion books for this material, but you can get close. Given that device rating is a little more important in 5E, I would expect such options to be in Data Trails. I personally don't see any reason why it shouldn't be possible (at least in limited extents), but I'm not sure it would be worth the expense.
The expense of it is a large factor. I agree that it should be feasible.. but, I know my character would rather just have a second Ares Predator waiting in case the first is bricked, than spend who knows how much money one or two extra defense dice in hacking tests.
A Determined Hacker won't be stopped by an extra die or two, but imagine when their look of victory turns to horror as you pull out a replacement Predator and have at them.
I'd allow it if a player asked and offer a mark-up, but I'd encourage they just invest in a top of the line commlink.
-
A higher device rating on something also gives it more matrix condition boxes. Plus they DR to resist matrix damage. Their own, too, I don't think you can use the Master's device rating, since you're not making a "defense test" and it's not one of it's matrix attributes.
-
SR4 had the option to upgrade a commlinks stats (Response, System, Firewall, and Signal) independently. While the same mechanic might work for a device in SR, to my mind it'd have to be something like upgrading data processing and firewall, and as a result of that having the mechanical device rating of the device rating increase if both stats were upgraded.
Given how expensive decks are, however, I'm not sure it's going to be possible to implement without unbalancing the decks (i.e. I think it'd have to be balanced in such a way that a decker can't just buy the cheapest deck there is and upgrade all of the stats to 6s for far less than the best deck out there). That might be a tricky proposition; somewhere between 10 and 100% of base cost * new rating, or * rating increase?
So upgrading the cheapest deck we'd be looking at 4 3 2 1 stats. To bring it to a device rating 2, upgrade the lowest stat so that all stats are two or higher. In the extremes proposed, that means 2 * 10% * 49500 = 9900 or 2 * 100 * 49500 = 99000. The first puts the total cost of the device at 59400, which is slightly more than the second cheapest deck which has 4 3 3 1 stats. If the latter suggestion was used, it'd be just 4950 for the one rating increase, which definitely seems too cheap.
Bringing an Erika MCD-1 (4 3 2 1, base cost 49,500) up to the level of a Fairlight Excalibur (9 8 7 6, base cost of 823,250) would mean raising four stats by 5, which in the first example presented above would be the equivalent of (9 * 4950) + (8 * 4950) + (6 * 4950) + (7 * 4950) = 44550 + 39600 + 34650 + 29700 = 148,500, for a total investment cost of 198,000. To me, this means that new ratings needs to be more expensive than 10% of base cost * new rating.
Using the same example, at 20% of base cost * new rating the total investment would be 301950, so closer, but not quite there.
At 30%, 495000
At 40%, 643500
At 50%, 792000
Using the same logic for, say, an Ares Alpha with base device rating 2 (meaning data processing 2 and firewall 2) and a base cost of 2650, the same logic could be applied. Upgrading to device rating 3 would mean upping DP and FW to 3, or 2 * (3 * 265|530|795|1060|1325), depending on percentage used.
At 10%, 2650 + 795 + 795 = 4240
At 20%, 2650 + 1590 + 1590 = 5830
At 30%, 2650 + 2385 + 2385 = 7420
At 40%, 2650 + 3180 + 3180 = 9010
At 50%, 2650 + 3975 + 3975 = 10600
At first, 10 grand might seem like a lot for a measly Ares Alpha, but this puts it in line with the cost of upgrading the most basic deck in the world to a state of the art supercomputer. You'd essentially have a DR6 rifle, which is pretty unheard of.
Based on my math above, I'd allow upgrading Attack, Data Processing, Firewall, and Sleaze rating (leading to an increase in device rating based on the lowest common denominator) for cyberdecks and Data Processing and Firewall for all other devices (with a similar DR increase) using the 50% of base cost * new rating system.
-
For the sake of simplicity, I simply have "alpha" guns and "beta" guns, using the same availability and cost modifiers as the cyberware. The chart on 234 mentions rating 5 being "black ops-level," so if my runners ever went up against a SF team (which would be terrible and messy), I'd probably have them using "delta" weapons.
-
Elegant, Kincaid. I like it.
The availability is a nice way of doing it, though the ubiquitous Ares Alpha would still be F, just a little harder to get. Alpha (DR3) would be 13F, Beta (DR4) would be 15F, and Delta (DR5) would be 19F.
At average intelligence, you are in fact not getting through that firewall without some difficulty - and part of the rarity is that the gear isn't at all freaking common.
(Edit: I've corrected a typo, but I just want to leave this here as a monument to the irony of my misspelling "intelligence")
I've been reading through the thread, and while I didn't want to respond to any of the earlier posts this one just has to be highlighted.
Owning one's mistakes. LIKE A BOSS! I salute you, RHat, that was cool... :D
-
It's not logical. And it's not a debate. This is a discussion about how wireless works with weapons. And you are using your knowledge as a blunt weapon because if you'll notice the number of people that have dropped out of this thread since you started up on Page 4 is staggering.
List of those that have fallen beneath the battering of your "debate":
ImaginalDisc, RIP page 4
I'm here, I'm just eating popcorn.
-
For the sake of simplicity, I simply have "alpha" guns and "beta" guns, using the same availability and cost modifiers as the cyberware. The chart on 234 mentions rating 5 being "black ops-level," so if my runners ever went up against a SF team (which would be terrible and messy), I'd probably have them using "delta" weapons.
That's rather elegant.
On the other hand I may err on the side of as little deviation from the rules here as possible. Unless a new weapon is exceptionally sophisticated I'll leave it device rating 2. A navy vessel's point defense gun, a laser, or something else exotic may qualify for a 3 device rating.
Anything with sophisticated guidance equipment I will handle as a drone.